GR 95469; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95469 ; July 25, 1991
AGAPITO MANUEL, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAMON MAKASIAR and SPOUSES JESUS DE JESUS and CARMEN DE JESUS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, the spouses De Jesus, filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Agapito Manuel for non-payment of rentals on an apartment unit leased on a month-to-month basis. Petitioner failed to pay rentals from May 1987. After a demand letter was sent and received on July 14, 1987, petitioner responded by informing the lessors that the rental arrears had been deposited in a bank account under his son’s name, withdrawable upon notice. The lessors’ counsel requested payment at his office, but petitioner instead asked that payment be collected at his residence, which the lessors refused. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled for the lessors, ordering ejectment and payment of arrears and attorney’s fees, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the ejectment judgment despite petitioner’s claims of (1) a supervening National Housing Authority (NHA) award of the lot to him, and (2) the lessors being in mora accipiendi (default in acceptance) making consignation unnecessary.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the supervening NHA award of the lot to petitioner does not nullify the ejectment. The summary action for ejectment is based solely on the fact of lease and expiration of its term due to non-payment. The question of ownership is irrelevant and must be raised in a separate action. The NHA award does not automatically transfer ownership of the apartment structure to petitioner, and the lessor-lessee relationship remains governed by their contract, not the rules of accession.
On the second issue, petitioner failed to effect a valid consignation. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, for consignation to extinguish the obligation to pay rent, the amount must be deposited in court or in a bank in the name of and with notice to the lessor. Petitioner’s act of depositing funds in his son’s bank account without complying with these strict legal requisites is defective. Consequently, the non-payment of rentals for at least three months constituted a valid ground for judicial ejectment. The lessors were not in mora accipiendi, as petitioner never tendered a valid payment or consignation.