ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 132331.April 18, 2001]

VILLANUEVA et al. vs. GARCIA

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 18 2001 .

G.R. No. 132331(Angelina Villanueva and Sps. Alberto and Lina Lorenzo vs. Julieta Garcia.)

Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated August 8, 1997 and Resolution dated January 15, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98193, "Julieta Garcia vs. Hon. Mario Guarina III, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 13, Angleina Villanueva and Sps. Alberto and Lina Lorenzo."

The facts as culled from the records are:

On April 5, 1994, respondent Julieta Garcia, registered owner of a lot located at 2282 Interior Leveriza St., Malate, Manila, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 15, a complaint for illegal detainer against petitioner Angelina Villanueva and spouses Alberto and Lina Lorenzo.

In her complaint, respondent Garcia alleged, among others, that she purchased the lot from David Cotingco.Petitioners Villanueva and spouses Lorenzo were renting the lot on a month-to-month basis at a monthly rental of P1,250.00 and P2,870.00, respectively.When she became the owner of the lot, respondent informed petitioners to pay their monthly rentals directly to her.However, they refused, disputing her ownership of the land.

On August 9, 1993, respondent notified petitioners that she needed the property for her family's personal use and demanded that they vacate the premises within three (3) months from notice.Petitioners failed to comply with the demand, prompting respondent to terminate the lease and file the instant complaint.

For their part, petitioners claimed that they took possession of the lot in 1970 pursuant to their verbal lease agreement with the previous owner, Rufino Co, at a monthly rental of P30.00.Rufino Co subsequently sold the land to David Cotingco who continued to be the lessor until his death in 1987.After he died, they paid their rental to Eduardo, David's son, until 1993.At the time of the alleged sale of the lot to respondent Garcia, petitioners were paying a monthly rental of P350.00.

When they were notified of the sale of the land to respondent, petitioners refused to recognize the same, asserting that David Cotingco who passed away in 1987 could not have sold it in 1992.Moreover, they claimed to be bona fide beneficiaries of the Urban Land Reform Decree or P.D. No. 1517 and, therefore, have the prior right to purchase the lot.

After trial, the MeTC rendered a decision ordering petitioners to vacate the premises and to pay the accrued rentals at the monthly rate of P1,250.00 (for Villanueva) and P2,870.00 (for spouses Lorenzo) until March, 1994.

Upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 13, modified the MeTC decision in the sense that petitioners were only ordered to pay accrued rentals at the rate of P350.00 a month.

Petitioners interposed a petition for review to the Court of Appeals, raising the sole issue of whether there is legal basis to justify their eviction from the premises.

The Court of Appeals ruled:

"In the case at bench, both the MCTC and the RTC held that the lease over the subject property was on a month-to-month basis.There was proper notice of non-renewal of contract and demand to vacate was made by petitioner on private respondent.Unquestionably, therefore, the verbal lease agreement entered into by private respondents and petitioner's predecessors-in-interest has been validly terminated.Hence, there is sufficient cause for ejectment under Section 5(f) of B.P. 877 which provides:

"Section 5: Grounds for Judicial Ejectment. - Ejectment shall be allowed on the following grounds:

"xxx xxx xxx

"(f) Expiration of the period of the lease contract."

xxx xxx xxx."

Petitioners now come to this Court, reiterating their allegation below that they cannot be ejected, even if the term of the lease has expired, because they are considered beneficiaries under P.D. 1517 which grants them the right of first refusal to buy the lot.They claim they are tenants who have built structures on the premises and have stayed there for a period of ten (10) years prior to the effectivity of the law on June 11, 1978.But the Court of Appeals found that petitioners commenced possession of the leased premises only in 1970, hence, less than the required ten-year period.

The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the verbal lease contract on a month-to-month basis between the parties was validly terminated when respondent asked petitioners to vacate the premises since the contract will no longer be renewed.This Court has consistently held that when a lease agreement is on a month-to-month basis, the said contract terminated at the end of each month, upon notice to vacate addressed by the lessor to the lessee. ¹ Siapian vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 11928 March 1, 2000, citing Labastida vs. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 662, 668 (1998).

Likewise, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that petitioners are not qualified to be beneficiaries of P.D. 1517 considering that they have not resided on the lot for ten years or more prior to June 11, 1978.

Indeed, petitioners failed to show that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED .Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE