Higit Pa

Susunod na Blog

hopeful ivy
nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Hopeful Ivy
IVY D
MANILA,

PHILIPPINES

View my complete profile

Blog Archive
July (4)
August (3)
July (14)
June (60)
May (28)
April (140)
March (38)
February (26)

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009

PASRICHA V. DON LUIS DISON REALTY

(REMEDIAL, CIVIL, CORPORATION)
We uphold the capacity of respondent company to institute the
ejectment case. Although the SEC suspended and eventually
revoked respondent's certificate of registration on 16 February
1995, records show that it instituted the action for ejectment on
15 December 1993. Accordingly, when the case was commenced,
its registration was not yet revoked. Besides, as correctly held by
the appellate court, the SEC later set aside its earlier orders of
suspension and revocation of respondent's certificate, rendering
the issue moot and academic.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER cases are summary in nature. In such
cases, the elements to be proved and resolved are the fact of
lease and the expiration or violation of its terms. Specifically, the
essential requisites or unlawful detainer are:
the fact of lease by virtue of a contract, express or
implied;
the expiration or termination of the possessor's right to
hold possession;
withholding by lessee of possession of the land or
building after the expiration or termination of the right
to possess;
letter of demand upon the lessee to pay the rental or
comply with the terms of the lease and vacate the
premises; and
the filing of the action within 1 year from the date of the
last demand received by the defendant.
It is undisputed that petitioners and respondents entered into 2
separate contracts of lease involving 9 rooms. Records likewise
show that respondent repeatedly demanded that petitioners
vacate the premises, but the latter refused to heed the demand;
thus, they remained in possession of the premises.
What was clearly established by the evidence was petitioners'
non-payment of rentals because ostensibly, they did not know to
whom payment should be made. However, this did not justify
their failure to pay, because if such were the case, they were not
without any remedy. They should have availed of the provisions
of the Civil Code on consignation of payment and of the Rules of
Court on interpleader.
CONSIGNATION shall be made by depositing the things due at
the disposal of the judicial authority, before whom the tender of
payment shall be proved in a proper case, and the
announcement of the consignation on other cases.
In the instant case, consignation alone would have produced the
effect of payment of the rentals. The rationale for consignation is
to avoid the performance of an obligation becoming more
onerous to the debtor by reason of causes not imputable to him.
Tender of payment must be accompanied by consignation on
order that the effect of payment may be produced.

Bumuo ng Blog

Mag-sign in

INTERPLEADER is proper whenever conflicting claims upon the

same subject matter are or may be made against a person who
claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest
in whole or in part is not disputed by claimants, he may bring an
action against conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead
and litigate their several claims among themselves.
Otherwise stated, an action for interpleader is proper when the
lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals should be
made due to conflicting claims on the property (or the right to
collect). The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against
double liability but to protect him against double vexation in
respect of one liability.
Notably, instead of availing of the above remedies, petitioners
opted to refrain from making payments.
Moreover, Article 1673 of the Civil Code gives the lessor the right
to judicially eject the lessees in case of non-payment of the
monthly rentals. A contract of lease is a consensual, bilateral,
onerous, and commutative contract by which the owner
temporarily grants the use of his property to another, who
undertakes to pay the rent therefor. For failure to pay the rent,
petitioners have no right to remain in the leased premises.
Posted by Ivy D at 3:36 AM
Labels: Consignation , Interpleader , Nachura case digest

No comments:
Post a Comment
Enter your comment...

Comment as:

Publish

Newer Post

Google Account

Preview

Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Older Post