Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The appellate court reversed the As to the remaining P13 million, the
ruling of the trial court: WHEREFORE, terms and conditions of the
finding merit in the appeal, the compromise agreement are clear
appealed Decision is hereby and unambiguous. It provides that
REVERSED and judgment is hereby the balance of P13 Million shall be
rendered ordering appellee SVHFI to paid, whether in one lump sum or in
pay appellants Santos and installments, at the discretion of the
Riverland, Inc.: (1) legal interest on Foundation, within a period of not
the principal amount of P13 million at more than two (2) years from the
the rate of 12% per annum from the execution of this agreement.
date of demand on October 28,
1992 up to the date of actual WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
payment of the whole obligation; for lack of merit. The Decision dated
and (2) P20,000 as attorney's fees January 30, 2002 of the Court of
and costs of suit. SO ORDERED. Appeals and its April 12, 2002
Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 55122
Delay are AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner. SO ORDERED
Delay as used in this article is
synonymous to default or mora G.R. No. 95469 July 25, 1991
which means delay in the fulfillment
of obligations. It is the non-fulfillment AGAPITO MANUEL, petitioner,
of the obligation with respect to vs.
time. In the case at bar, the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
obligation was already due and RAMON MAKASIAR and SPOUSES
demandable after the lapse of the
JESUS DE JESUS and CARMEN DE private respondents allegedly
JESUS, respondents. refused to receive, had been
deposited at United Coconut
Miguel Y. Badando for petitioner. Planters Bank, Taft Avenue Branch,
R.C. Lizardo Law Office for private with Account No. 8893 in the name
respondents. of the petitioner's son, Mario Manuel,
and could be withdrawn upon
notice of payment; that in order to
REGALADO, J.: collect the said rentals allegedly
deposited with the bank, the private
This case had its inception in a respondents' counsel sent a letter
complaint for ejectment filed by dated August 14, 1987 to the
herein private respondents against petitioner, requesting the payment
herein petitioner before the of the unpaid rentals to his (private
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, respondents' counsel) office; that
docketed as Civil Case No. 122136- the said letter was received by the
CV, for non-payment of rentals on petitioner on August 18, 1987, and,
an apartment unit owned by private instead of complying with private
respondents and rented by respondents' counsel's request, the
petitioner. petitioner addressed a letter dated
August 24, 1987 to the private
The antecedent facts which led to respondents' counsel requesting that
the filing of said case are best the rentals in arrears be paid to the
quoted from the succinct private respondents at petitioner's
presentation thereof in the house. The private respondents did
challenged decision of respondent not heed the petitioner's request.1
court:
On April 6, 1989, after the parties had
It appears that the private submitted their respective affidavits
respondents are the owners of an and position papers, the said
apartment unit which was rented by metropolitan trial court rendered
the petitioner on a month to month judgment in favor of private
basis for a monthly rental of P466.00 respondents, as plaintiffs therein, the
payable in advance; that the dispositive part whereof declares:
petitioner failed to pay the
corresponding rentals for the month WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby
of May 1987 up to the filing of the rendered in favor of the plaintiffs,
complaint on August 31, 1987; that ordering defendant and/or any
on July 9, 1987, private respondents, other person claiming rights under
through their counsel, sent a him to vacate and surrender
demand letter to the petitioner possession of the premises described
(Exhibit "R") requiring him to pay his as door No. 2444; defendant
rentals in arrears and to vacate the Agapito Manuel to pay the plaintiffs
leased premises within five (5) days the amount of P466.00 a month from
from receipt thereof, otherwise May 1987 and up to the date
private respondents will be defendant and/or any other person
constrained to file the appropriate claiming rights under him actually
legal action against him; that the vacates the premises, to pay the
demand letter of private plaintiffs the amount of P500.00 as
respondents' counsel was received attorney's fees, plus cost of the Suit.2
by the petitioner on July 14, 1987;
that in response thereto, the On appeal in Civil Case No. 89-
petitioner addressed a letter dated 48914, the Regional Trial Court of
July 15, 1987 to private respondent Manila, Branch 35, affirmed the
Carmen de Jesus, furnishing a copy aforesaid judgment in toto in its
thereof to her counsel, stating that decision dated September 20,
the amount of rentals, which the 1989.3
juridical relation between petitioner
Not satisfied therewith, petitioner and private respondent as lessee
appealed to respondent Court of and lessors is well established and
Appeals which, in its decision4 dated the non-payment of rentals by
January 29, 1990 in CA-G.R. SP No. petitioner for at least three (3)
18961, denied due course to the months is substantial by the
petition for review and dismissed the evidence on record.
same for lack of merit.5 Petitioner's
motion for motion for The award of the lot to petitioner by
reconsideration was likewise denied NHA does not automatically vest in
by said respondent court in its him ownership over the leased
resolution of March 5, 1990.6 structure thereon. Petitioner cannot
invoke the provisions of the Civil
Before us, petitioner raises two Code on accession there being an
grounds, the first supposedly in the existing lessor and lessee relation
nature of a supervenience, for the between him and private
allowance of his petition, viz.: respondents.9 A tenant cannot, in
an action involving the possession of
1. A new situation developed the leased premises, controvert the
and/or came about which makes title of his landlord or assert any rights
ejectment unjust and impossible, adverse to that title or set up any
that is, the NHA finally awarded the inconsistent right to change the
lot over which the subject structure relation existing between himself and
stands to the petitioner and other his landlord, without first delivering
tenants and disqualified the private up to the landlord the premises
respondent. It said ruling or awards, acquired by virtue of the agreement
the private respondent are only between themselves. The rule
given the option to either sell the estopping a tenant while he retains
structure to the petitioner and the possession applies whether the
other awardees or to dismantle the tenant is defendant or plaintiff and
same. applies even though the landlord
had no title at the time the
2. Moreover, under the relationship was created.10
circumstances prevailing in this
instant case, the private respondent Proceedings in forcible entry and
were really in mora accipiendi that detainer are wholly summary in
even if no deposit or consignation nature. The fact of lease and the
had been made, said mora cannot expiration of its terms are the only
be cured. Petitioner had in fact elements of this kind of action.11 The
continuously made available and question of ownership is unessential
deposited his rentals had been and should be raised by the
made moot and academic by virtue defendant in an appropriate
of the NHA award in favor of the action.12 Any controversy over
petitioner and the governmental ownership right could and should be
expression of public policy to protect settled after the party who had the
the actual occupants, specifically prior, peaceful and actual
the petitioner.7 possession is returned to the
property.13
We find the petition bereft of merit.
In the present case and assuming
The putative award on April 6, 1990 the new factual milieu posited by
by the National Housing Authority petitioner, he should file a separate
(NHA) to the petitioner of the lot action wherein his alleged rights as
where the rented apartment owner of the land vis-a-vis the rights
stands,8 while this ejectment case of private respondents as builders or
was pending in the Court of owners of the structure standing
Appeals, is of no moment. The thereon can be properly ventilated.
There can be no such adjudication name of and with notice to the
here for when the relationship of lessor. The failure of herein petitioner
lessor and lessee is established in an to comply with said requirement
unlawful detainer case, any attempt makes the consignation defective
of the defendant to inject the and gives rise to a cause of action
question of ownership into the case for ejectment.18 Compliance with
is inutile except in so far as it might the requisites of a valid consignation
throw light on the right of is mandatory. It must be complied
possession.14 with frilly and strictly in accordance
with the law. Substantial compliance
In an appeal from an inferior court in is not enough.19
an ejectment case the issue of
ownership should not be delved into, From the earlier discussion, petitioner
for an ejectment action lies even evidently did not comply with the
against the owner of the property.15 requirements for consignation
The fact of possession in itself has a prescribed by the governing law.
positive value and is endowed with Consequently, as expounded by the
a distinct standing of its own in the Court of Appeals —
law of property. True, by this principle
of respect for the possessory status, a The failure of the petitioner to fully
wrongful possessor may at times be and strictly comply with the
upheld by the courts, but this is only requirements of consignation as
temporary and for one sole and aforementioned, renders nil his
special purpose, namely, the contention that the private
maintenance of public order. The respondents have no cause of
protection is only temporary action against him, As there was no
because it is intended that as soon valid consignation, payment of the
as the lawless act of dispossession more than three months rental
has been suppressed, the question arrearages was not effected. Under
of ownership or of possession de jure Section 5(b) of B.P. Blg. 25, as
is to be settled in the proper court amended, arrears in payment of rent
and in a proper action. The larger for three (3) months at any one time,
and permanent interests of property is a ground for judicial ejectment. For
require that such rare and such non-payment of the petitioner
exceptional instance of preference to the private respondents of the
in the courts of the actual but monthly rentals from May, 1987 until
wrongful possessor be permitted.16 the case was filed on August 31,
1987, or for more than three (3)
The contention of petitioner that months, there therefore existed a
private respondents are in mora cause of action in favor of the
accipiendi cannot be upheld private respondent lessors against
either.1âwphi1 The failure of the the petitioner lessee.20
owners to collect or their refusal to
accept the rentals are not valid ACCORDINGLY, the petition is
defenses. Consignation, under such DENIED and the assailed judgment
circumstances, is necessary,17 and of respondent Court of Appeals is
by this we mean one that is effected AFFIRMED.
in full compliance with the specific
requirements of the law therefor. SO ORDERED.