TodayisTuesday,January24,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.77648August7,1989
CETUSDEVELOPMENT,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandONGTENG,respondents.
G.R.No.77647August7,1989
CETUSDEVELOPMENT,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandEDERLINANAVALTA,respondents.
G.R.No.77649August7,1989
CETUSDEVELOPMENT,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandJOSELIWANAG,respondents.
G.R.No.77650August7,1989
CETUSDEVELOPMENT,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandLEANDROCANLAS,respondents.
G.R.No.77651August7,1989
CETUSDEVELOPMENT,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandVICTORIASUDARIOrespondents.
G.R.No.77652August7,1989
CETUSDEVELOPMENT,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandFLORANAGBUYArespondents.

MEDIALDEA,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisiondatedJanuary30,1987oftheCourtofAppealsinCAGR
Nos.SP0794550entitled,"CetusDevelopment,Inc.,Petitionervs.Hon.ConradoT.Limcaoco,PresidingJudge,
RegionalTrialCourtofManila,BranchEderlinaNavalta,et.al.,respondents.
Thefollowingfactsappearintherecords:
Theprivaterespondents,EderlinaNavalta,OngTeng,JoseLiwanag,LeandroCanlas,VictoriaSudario,andFlora
Nagbuya were the lessees of the premises located at No. 512 Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, originally
owned by the Susana Realty. These individual verbal leases were on a monthto month basis at the following
rates:EderlinaNavaltaattherateofP80.50OngTengattherateofP96.10JoseLiwanagattherateofP40.35
Leandro Canlas at the rate of P80.55 Victoria Sudario at the rate of P50.45 and Flora Nagbuya at the rate of
P80.55.ThepaymentsoftherentalswerepaidbythelesseestoacollectoroftheSusanaRealtywhowenttothe
premisesmonthly.

SometimeinMarch,1984,theSusanaRealtysoldtheleasedpremisestothepetitioner,CetusDevelopment,Inc.,
acorporationdulyorganizedandexistingunderthelawsofthePhilippines.FromApriltoJune,1984,theprivate
respondentscontinuedtopaytheirmonthlyrentalstoacollectorsentbythepetitioner.Inthesucceedingmonths
ofJuly,AugustandSeptember1984,therespondentsfailedtopaytheirmonthlyindividualrentalsasnocollector
came.
OnOctober9,1984,thepetitionersentalettertoeachoftheprivaterespondentsdemandingthattheyvacate
the subject premises and to pay the back rentals for the months of July, August and September, 1984, within
fifteen(15)daysfromthereceiptthereof.ImmediatelyuponthereceiptofthesaiddemandlettersonOctober10,
1984, the private respondents paid their respective arrearages in rent which were accepted by the petitioner
subject to the unilateral condition that the acceptance was without prejudice to the filing of an ejectment suit.
Subsequentmonthlyrentalpaymentswerelikewiseacceptedbythepetitionerunderthesamecondition.
ForfailureoftheprivaterespondentstovacatethepremisesasdemandedintheletterdatedOctober9,1984,
the petitioner filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila complaints for ejectment against the manner, as
follows: (1) 105972CV, against Ederlina Navalta (2) 105973CV, against Jose Liwanag (3) 105974CV, against
FloraNagbuya(4)105975CV,againstLeandroCanlas(5)105976CV,againstVictoriaSudarioand(6)105977
CV,againstOngTeng.
In their respective answers, the six (6) private respondents interposed a common defense. They claimed that
sincetheoccupancyofthepremisestheypaidtheirmonthlyrentalregularlythroughacollectorofthelessorthat
theirnonpaymentoftherentalsforthemonthsofJuly,AugustandSeptember,1984,wasduetothefailureof
thepetitioner(asthenewowner)tosenditscollectorthattheywereatalossastowheretheyshouldpaytheir
rentalsthatsometimelater,oneoftherespondentscalledtheofficeofthepetitionertoinquireastowherethey
wouldmakesuchpaymentsandhewastoldthatacollectorwouldbesenttoreceivethesamethatnocollector
waseversentbythepetitionerandthatinsteadtheyreceivedauniformdemandletterdatedOctober9,1984.
The private respondents, thru counsel, later filed a motion for consolidation of the six cases and as a result
thereof,thesaidcaseswereconsolidatedintheMetropolitanTrialCourtofManila,BranchXII,presidedoverby
JudgeEduardoS.Quintos,Jr.OnJune4,1985,thetrialcourtrendereditsdecisiondismissingthesixcases,a
pertinentportionofwhichreads,asfollows:
Therecordsofthiscaseshowthatatthetimeofthefilingofthiscomplaint,therentalshadallbeen
paid.Hence,theplaintiffcannotejectthedefendantsfromtheleasedpremises,becauseatthetime
thesecaseswereinstituted,therearenorentalsinarrears.
Theacceptanceofthebackrentalbytheplaintiffbeforethefilingofthecomplaint,asinthesecase,
theallegedrentalarrearageswerepaidimmediatelyafterreceiptofthedemandletter,removesits
causeofactioninanunlawfuldetainercase,eveniftheacceptancewaswithoutprejudice.
xxx.
Furthermore, the court has observed that the account involved which constitutes the rentals of the
tenants are relatively small to which the ejectment may not lie on grounds of equity and for
humanitarianreasons.
Defendants' counterclaim for litigation expenses has no legal and factual basis for assessing the
sameagainstplaintiff.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing these cases, without pronouncement as to
costs.
Defendants'counterclaimislikewisedismissed.
SOORDERED.(pp.3233,Rollo,G.R.No.77647)
NotsatisfiedwiththedecisionoftheMetropolitanTrialCourt,thepetitionerappealedtotheRegionalTrialCourt
ofManilaandthesamewasassignedtoBranchIXthereofpresidedoverbyJudgeConradoT.Limcaoco(now
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals). In its decision dated November 19, 1985, the Regional Trial Court
dismissedtheappealforlackofmerit.
l w p h 1 . t

In due time, a petition for review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court was filed by the petitioner with the
CourtofAppeals.SaidpetitionwasdismissedonJanuary30,1987,forlackofmerit.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioner now comes to Us in this petition, assigning the
followingerrors:
ASSIGNMENTOFERRORS

I
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
AMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTION,WHENITERREDINHOLDINGTHATTHECAUSEOF
ACTIONFORUNLAWFULDETAINERINTHESECASESDIDNOTEXISTWHENTHECOMPLAINTS
WERE FILED BECAUSE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TENDERED, AND PETITIONER ACCEPTED,
THE PAYMENT OF THE THREE (3) MONTHS RENTAL IN ARREARS WITHIN THE FIFTEEN (15)
DAY PERIOD FROM PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' RECEIPT OF PETITIONER'S DEMAND LETTERS
TOVACATETHESUBJECTPREMISESANDTOPAYTHERENTALSINARREARS.
II
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVEABUSE OF DISCRETION,
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION COMMITTED A GRAVE WHEN IT ERRED IN
AFFIRMINGTHEDISMISSALOFTHECOMPLAINTSINTHESECASESNOTWITHSTANDINGTHE
EXISTENCEOFVALIDGROUNDSFORTHEJUDICIALEJECTMENTOFPRIVATERESPONDENT.
III
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THESE CASES
ARECLASSICEXAMPLESTOCIRCUMVENTTHERENTCONTROLLAW.(pp.164165,Rollo,G.R.
No.77647)
TheCourtofAppealsdefinedthebasicissueinthiscaseasfollows:whetherornotthereexistsacauseofaction
when the complaints for unlawful detainer were filed considering the fact that upon demand by petitioner from
private respondents for payment of their back rentals, the latter immediately tendered payment which was
acceptedbypetitioner.
Inholdingthattherewasnocauseofaction,therespondentCourtreliedonSection2,Rule70oftheRulesof
Court,whichprovides:
Sec. 2. Landlord to proceed against tenant only after demand. No landlord or his legal
representativeorassign,shallbesuchactionagainstatenantforfailuretopayrentdueortocomply
withtheconditionsofhislease,unlessthetenantshallhavefailedtopaysuchrentorcomplywith
such conditions for a period of fifteen (15) days or five (5) days in case of building, after demand
therefor,madeuponqqqmpersonally,orbyservingwrittennoticeofsuchdemandupontheperson
foundonthepremises,orbypostingsuchnoticeonthepremisesifnopersonsbefoundthereon.
Itinterpretedthesaidprovisionasfollows:
.....therighttobringanactionofejectmentorunlawfuldetainermustbecountedfromthetimethe
defendants failed to pay rent after the demand therefor. It is not the failure per se to pay rent as
agreedinthecontract,butthefailuretopaytherentafterademandthereforismade,thatentitles
thelessortobringanactionforunlawfuldetainer.Inotherwords,thedemandcontemplatedbythe
abovequoted provision is not a demand to vacate, but a demand made by the landlord upon his
tenant for the latter to pay the rent due if the tenant fails to comply with the said demand with the
period provided, his possession becomes unlawful and the landlord may then bring the action for
ejectment.(p.28,,G.R.No.77647)
WeholdthatthedemandrequiredandcontemplatedinSection2,aforequoted,isajurisdictionalrequirementfor
thepurposeofbringinganunlawfuldetainersuitforfailuretopayrentorcomplywiththeconditionsoflease.It
partakesofanextrajudicialremedythatmustbepursuedbeforeresortingforjudicialactionsomuchsothatwhen
thereisfullcompliancewiththedemand,therearisesnonecessityforcourtaction.
Astowhetherthisdemandismerelyademandtopayrentorcomplywiththeconditionsoftheleaseoralsoa
demandtovacate,theanswercanbegleanedfromsaidSection2.Thissectionpresupposestheexistenceofa
causeofactionforunlawfuldetainerasitspeaksof"failuretopayrentdueorcomplywiththeconditionsofthe
lease."TheexistenceofsaidcauseofactiongivesthelessortherightunderArticle1659oftheNewCivilCodeto
ask for the rescission of the contract of lease and indemnification for damages, or only the latter, allowing the
contracttoremaininforce.Accordingly,iftheoptionchosenisforspecificperformance,thenthedemandreferred
to is obviously to pay rent or to comply with the conditions of the lease violated. However, if rescission is the
optionchosen,thedemandmustbeforthelesseetopayrentsortocomplywiththeconditionsoftheleaseand
tovacate.Accordingly,therulethathasbeenfollowedinourjurisprudencewhererescissionisclearlytheoption
taken,isthatbothdemandstopayrentandtovacatearenecessarytomakealesseeadeforciantinorderthat
anejectmentsuitmaybefiled(Casilanetal.vs.Tomassi,L16574,February28,1964,10SCRA261Rickards
vs.Gonzales,109Phil.423,Dikitvs.Icasiano,89Phil.44).
l w p h 1 . t

Thus,forthepurposeofbringinganejectmentsuit,tworequisitesmustconcur,namely:(1)theremustbefailure
topayrentorcomplywiththeconditionsoftheleaseand(2)theremustbedemandbothtopayortocomplyand
vacatewithintheperiodsspecifiedinSection2,Rule70,namely15daysincaseoflandsand5daysincaseof
buildings.Thefirstrequisitereferstotheexistenceofthecauseofactionforunlawfuldetainerwhilethesecond
referstothejurisdictionalrequirementofdemandinorderthatsaidcauseofactionmaybepursued.
Itisveryclearthatinthecaseatbar,nocauseofactionforejectmenthasaccrued.Therewasnofailureyeton
the part of private respondents to pay rents for three consecutive months. As the terms of the individual verbal
leases which were on a monthtomonth basis were not alleged and proved, the general rule on necessity of
demandapplies,towit:thereisdefaultinthefulfillmentofanobligationwhenthecreditordemandspaymentat
the maturity of the obligation or at anytime thereafter. This is explicit in Article 1169, New Civil Code which
provides that "(t)hose obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or
extrajudiciallydemandsfromthemthefulfillmentoftheirobligation."Petitionerhasnotshownthatitscasefallson
anyofthefollowingexceptionswheredemandisnotrequired:(a)whentheobligationorthelawsodeclares(b)
when from the nature and circumstances of the obligation it can be inferred that time is of the essence of the
contract and (c) when demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to
perform.
ThedemandrequiredinArticle1169oftheCivilCodemaybeinanyform,providedthatitcanbeproved.The
proof of this demand lies upon the creditor. Without such demand, oral or written, the effects of default do not
arise. This demand is different from the demand required under Section 2, Rule 70, which is merely a
jurisdictionalrequirementbeforeanexistingcauseofactionmaybepursued.
The facts on record fail to show proof that petitioner demanded the payment of the rentals when the obligation
matured.Coupledwiththefactthatnocollectorwassentaspreviouslydoneinthepast,theprivaterespondents
cannotbeheldguiltyofmorasolvendiordelayinthepaymentofrentals.Thus,whenpetitionerfirstdemanded
the payment of the 3month arrearages and private respondents lost no time in making tender and payment,
whichpetitioneraccepted,nocauseofactionforejectmentaccrued.Hence,itsdemandtovacatewaspremature
asitwasanexerciseofanonexistingrighttorescind.
Incontradistinction,wheretherightofrescissionexists,paymentofthearrearagesinrentalafterthedemandto
payandtovacateunderSection2,Rule70doesnotextinguishthecauseofactionforejectmentasthelessoris
notonlyentitledtorecovertheunpaidrentsbutalsotoejectthelessee.
Petitioner correctly argues that acceptance of tendered payment does not constitute a waiver of the cause of
actionforejectmentespeciallywhenacceptedwiththewrittenconditionthatitwas"withoutprejudicetothefiling
ofanejectmentsuit".Indeed,itisillogicalorridiculousnottoacceptthetenderofpaymentofrentalsmerelyto
preservetherighttofileanactionforunlawfuldetainer.However,thislineofargumentpresupposesthatacause
ofactionforejectmenthasalreadyaccrued,whichisnottrueintheinstantcase.
Petitioner likewise claims that its failure to send a collector to collect the rentals cannot be considered a valid
defenseforthereasonthatsendingacollectorisnotoneoftheobligationsofthelessorunderArticle1654.While
itistruethatalessorisnotobligatedtosendacollector,ithasbeendulyestablishedthatithasbeencustomary
forprivaterespondentstopaytherentalsthroughacollector.BesidesArticle1257,NewCivilCodeprovidesthat
wherenoagreementhasbeendesignatedforthepaymentoftherentals,theplaceofpaymentisatthedomicile
ofthedefendants.Hence,itcouldnotbesaidthattheywereindefaultinthepaymentoftheirrentalsasthedelay
in paying the same was not imputable to them. Rather, it was attributable to petitioner's omission or neglect to
collect.
PetitioneralsoarguesthatneitherisitsrefusedtoaccepttherentalsadefensefornonpaymentasArticle1256
providesthat"[i]fthecreditortowhomthetenderofpaymenthasbeenmaderefuseswithoutjustcausetoaccept
it,thedebtorshallbereleasedfromresponsibilitybytheconsignationofthethingdue."Itbearsemphasisthatin
this case there was no unjustified refusal on the part of petitioner or nonacceptance without reason that would
constitutemoraaccipiendiandwarrantconsignation.Therewassimplylackofdemandforpaymentoftherentals.
Insum,WeholdthatrespondentCourtofAppealsdidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackof
jurisdictioninitsconclusionaffirmingthetrialcourt'sdecisiondismissingpetitioner'scomplaintforlackofcauseof
action.Wedonotagree,however,withthereasonsreliedupon.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the decision dated
January30,1987ofrespondentCourtofAppealsisherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,Cruz,GancaycoandGrioAquinoJJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation