REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 98

SPS. ARNEL & ABIGAIL DE LEON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- Civil Case No. R-QZN-16-04265-CV

For: Unlawful Detainer

JOSE PAOLO MADLANGSAKAY,

Defendant-Appellant.
x------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
This is an appealed case from the Decision1 of Branch 37 of
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, dated January 25, 2016,
anent a case for “Unlawful Detainer” filed by the plaintiff Sps. Arnel
and Abigail De Leon against Jose Paolo Madlangsakay.

In this appeal, the court is called upon to reverse the assailed

decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“Based on the foregoing, the case is decided in

favor of the plaintiff. Defendant JOSE PAOLO
MADLANGSAKAY and all persons claiming right
under him is hereby ordered to:

1. Vacate the premises and turn over possession

thereof to the plaintiffs;

2. Pay the plaintiff the amount of Php135,000.00

representing the unpaid monthly rentals from
September 2013 up to the time that the
premises shall have been vacated

3. Pay the amount of Php15,000.00 as attorney’s

fees and Php2,000.00 as per appearance fee;
and

4. Pay the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.”

1
Decided by the Hon. Augustus Diaz
 THE FACTUAL BACKDROP

The facts of the case as outlined in the assailed Decision, are

as follows-

On May 31, 2014, plaintiff-appellee SPOUSES ARNEL AND

ABEGAIL DE LEON (“Spouses De Leon” for brevity) filed the
subject civil complaint for unlawful detainer against defendant-
appellant JOSE PAOLO MAGLANGSAKAY (“Maglangsakay” for
brevity) before the court a quo. The complaint was docketed as Civil
Case No. R-QZN-16-04265-CV.

Plaintiff-appellee alleges that it is the lawful owners of the two

(2) storey house and the lot it is situated in located at No. 81-C
Xavierville Ave. Loyola Heights, Quezon City, covered by Transfer
Title Certificate No. N-302701. Plaintiff-appellee acquired the said
subject foreclosed property sometime in 2007 by purchase of the
same from Land Bank of the Philippines.

Sometime on October 24, 2009 the parties had an amicable

settlement before the Office of the Punong Barangay of Loyola
Heights, Quezon City whereby it was agree among others, that the
plaintiffs allowed the defendant to remain in possession of the
property until October 15, 2010 in consideration of monthly rentals in
the amount of eleven thousand pesos (Php11,000.00). It was further
alleged that sometime later, herein defendant pleaded that he be
allowed to remain in the subject property as a tenant for one (1) year
from October 15, 2012 to October 14, 2013. Herein plaintiffs agreed
in consideration of a monthly rental fee of fifteen thousand pesos
(Php15,000.00).

Defendant-appellant had religiously paid the agreed monthly

rental to the plaintiffs, but soon after the defendant had become
delinquent in his payments specifically from September 15, 2013 up
to the date of the complaint which totaled to One Hundred Thirty-five
Thousand pesos (Php135,000.00). The matter was then referred to
the Barangay for conciliation proceedings and mediation purposes
but to no avail, it prompted the Lupon Secretary to issue a Certificate
to File Action.

Plaintiffs-appellees also further claim that they have decided to

use the subject property as a family home due to the difficult health
condition of one of the plaintiffs-appellees, Abigail De Leon, who is
suffering from breast cancer and bone metastasis and undergoing
chemotherapy. Several demands were unheeded and a final demand
letter was sent which was dated May 5, 2014 but was still ignored.
 Summons together with a copy of the complaint and the
annexes thereto were served upon the defendant-appellant who filed
his answer2.

In his answer, the defendant-appellant claims that the filing of

the instant case is pre-mature as he has not yet received any formal
demand from the plaintiff, hence the case should be dismissed.

Thereupon, the pre-trial conference of the above-entitled case

was set on September 10, 2014 and the parties were directed to
undergo mediation proceedings before the Philippine Mediation
Board. But an amicable settlement was not reached thus the same
was referred to Judicial Dispute Resolution, unfortunately here as
well the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. The case was
then returned to the court a quo for continuation of the pre-trial
conference.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO

In the same decision the court a quo pointed out that the issues
to be resolved in the case being appealed by the defendant-appellant
is whether or not the plaintiffs-appellants sent a demand letter upon
the defendant to vacate the subject property 3.

On January 25, 2016 the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 37 of

Quezon City rendered the assailed judgment in favor of the plaintiff-
appellee against the defendant-appellant.

Bewailing the decision of the court a quo, the defendants now

take this appeal putting fourth the following assigned errors 4:

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN RENDERING A DECISION NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1987
CONSTITUTION AND THE REVISED RULES
OF COURT;

II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE DEMAND
TO VACATE WAS PROVEN IN THIS CASE.

2
Answer was filed by the defendant on July 2014
3
p. 2-3 of the Decision, rollo p. 96-97.
4
See Memorandum of the Appellant dated July 13, 2016.
 From the above general assignment of errors, the following
specific issues may be inferred therefrom, which the court finds
pertinent to address:

a) whether or not the court a quo failed to render a decision in

accordance to the rules of court making it void; and

b) whether or not there was sufficient demand made by the

plaintiff-appellant.

THE COURT’S RULING

Along with the memorandum filed by the plaintiff-appellant, the

court shall now proceed to render its findings in the instant appeal.

The court finds the APPEAL to be WITHOUT MERIT.

1. The Decision Issue

Was the decision issued
in accordance with the Rules of Court and
the 1987 Constitution?

The defendant-appellant raises two points; one is that the lower

court erred when it issued its Decision that was inconsistent with
Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically Section 14,
which states:

No decision shall be rendered by any court

without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based.

The defendant-appellant alleges that the subject decision of this

appeal failed to discuss in full the facts of the case and the legal basis
for its ruling in the case at bar. It further avers that the court a quo
merely presented the facts according to the parties and not an
independent factual finding and finally stated that the evidence of the
plaintiffs-appellees fulfilled the preponderance of evidence necessary
to rule in their favor as opposed to the defendant-appellant.

The second point is that the decision was inconsistent with

what is stated in Section 1, Rule 36 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure to wit:

Rendition of judgments and final orders. — A

judgment or final order determining the merits of
the case shall be in writing personally and
directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly
 and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of
the court.

The defendant-appellant asserts that as declared by the

Supreme Court in various cases5 parties in litigation must be fully
informed on how the case was decided including a factual and legal
explanation and reason leading to the conclusion of the court. Also
the Supreme Court had instructed magistrates to exert effort in
ensuring that decisions would be comprehensive and account the
factual and legal findings. In the same set of decisions the defendant-
appellant avers that the Supreme Court had stated that decisions that
do not conform to form or substance required by the Constitution and
the law is void and deemed legally inexistent and failure to comply is
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

The defendant-appellant maintains that the appealed decision,

having been rendered without discussing the facts and law on which
the same was based is void and must be reversed and set aside.

The court disagrees with the defendant-appellant.

From the facts obtaining, the court a quo was correct in its
ruling. In reviewing the assailed decision 6 the court finds that the
court a quo had clearly presented the factual findings relevant to the
case and had shown the same as the basis for its decision. Further
the decision was also based on applicable law as the court a quo had
anchored its decision on the relevant sections of Rule 70 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. On the issue of the Demand to Vacate

On the second assignment of error the defendant-appellant

submits that the lower court seriously erred when it refused to dismiss
the complaint for lack of merit. Defendant-appellant alleges that
because the action was predicated on the failure of the same to pay
rentals; a demand must first be made before filing an action for
unlawful detainer, which the plaintiff-appellee failed to comply with.

The defendant-appellant relies once again on the cases

decided by the Supreme Court 7 wherein it asserts that a demand is a
pre-requisite to an action for unlawful detainer, when the action is
5
Nicos Industrial Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88709, February 11, 1992; Yao
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132428, October 24, 2000; Velarde vs. Social Justice
Society, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004; University of the Philippines vs. Agustin
Dizon, G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012.
6
p. 1-3 of the Decision, rollo p. 95-97.
based on failure to pay rent due or to comply with the conditions of
his lease.

Defendant-appellant further alleged that what was proffered to

prove that demand was made was a purported demand letter; the
receipt of the same is denied by the appellant. He maintained that is
is clear from the evidence he did not sign the said demand letter or
the registry return card. Therefore the demand to vacate was not
proven and the case at bar must then fail.

Defendant-appellant’s contention is untenable.

The court invokes a pertinent provision of law namely Section

2, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to resolve the issue,
to wit:

Section 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee

only after demand. — Unless otherwise
stipulated, such action by the lesser shall be
commenced only after demand to pay or
comply with the conditions of the lease and
to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by
serving written notice of such demand upon
the person found on the premises if no
person be found thereon, and the lessee fails
to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in
the case of land or five (5) days in the case
of buildings. (Emphasis provided)

There is no question then that a demand letter or notice as

abovementioned may be made upon the lessee or the person found
on the premises. In the case at bar the facts show that defendant-
appellant is a lessee on the subject property, thus a demand must be
made upon him or a person found on the premises in his absence.

Upon review of the records of the instant case the court finds
that the said demand letter8 was indeed given and was received by a
certain Remedios Maglangsakay who was found at the premises of
the subject property.

Thus, the trial court did not err in declaring that the demand to
vacate was proven in this case. There was sufficient demand made
by the plaintiff-appellant. Also, due to the fact that the said demand
was unheeded the filing for an action for unlawful detainer is then
proper and sustaining the same was correct.
7
Lanuza vs. Munoz, G.R. No. 147372, May 27, 2004; Kian vs. Immediate Appellate
Court, G.R. No. 75676, August 29, 1990.
8
Exhibit “F” and “G” with submarkings, pages 28-29 of the record (volume I).
 WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the instant appeal is
DENIED, and the assailed Decision, dated January 25, 2016
rendered by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37,
is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, August 17, 2016.

MARILOU D. RUNES-TAMANG, MNSA

Presiding Judge

CC