GR 78538; (October, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 78538 October 25, 1989
BELLA S.D. UY, assisted by her husband BENJAMIN REYES UY, SR., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and NICANOR PADILLA, respondents.
FACTS
The private respondent, Nicanor Padilla, filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Bella S.D. Uy in the City Court of Manila for failure to pay monthly rentals. Padilla alleged the monthly rent was P150. Uy countered that the original verbal lease, commencing in 1961, had a monthly rental of P60, which was gradually increased to P80. She claimed that in September 1978, Padilla’s collector unilaterally demanded an increase to P150 and refused to accept her tender of payment at the old rate of P80 for the subsequent months. The City Court ruled in favor of Padilla, ordering Uy’s ejectment and payment of arrears and attorney’s fees. This decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and later, with modification, by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
The main issue is whether the petitioner incurred arrears in rental payment, constituting a valid ground for judicial ejectment under the applicable rental laws.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision ordering ejectment. The legal logic centers on the application of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25. Section 5(b) of BP 25 explicitly provides that arrears in payment of rent for three months at any one time is a ground for ejectment. A crucial proviso states that if the lessor refuses to accept the agreed rental, the lessee must consign the amount in court or in a bank, with notice to the lessor. The Court found that the petitioner was in arrears for eight months, from September 1978 to May 1979. Even assuming the lessor refused the proffered payments at the old rate, the petitioner’s obligation was to resort to consignation promptly to avoid default. Her act of depositing the amounts in a bank only in 1984, after a delay exceeding four years, was legally insufficient to interrupt the accrual of arrears. The Court further clarified that the lease, being monthly without a definite term, was governed by the rental laws, not solely by Article 1687 of the Civil Code. Since the petitioner failed to validly consign the rentals, she was legally in arrears, justifying ejectment. The Court also modified the award, ruling that the lessor was entitled to both rentals in arrears and current rentals as reasonable compensation for use and occupancy until vacatur, in the interest of substantial justice.