G.R. No. 104615 August 24, 1993
Emiliana Medina, petitioner, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and Ruben Laqui, respondents.

FACTS

In 1974, Dominga Hipolito (petitioner’s mother) orally leased an apartment unit in Tondo, Manila from Rosa Laqui (private respondent’s mother) on a month-to-month basis. After Dominga’s death in February 1990, her family, including petitioner Emiliana Medina, continued to occupy the premises. On May 15, 1990, Rosa Laqui, through an agent, notified petitioner of a rental increase from P729.35 to P1,500.00 per month effective June 1990. Petitioner refused the increase, tendering only the current rental plus a 20% increase as allowed by law. Rosa refused acceptance. Petitioner then deposited rentals for August to October 1990 with the Barangay Treasurer and filed a consignation case (Civil Case No. 133933) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) on November 2, 1990. In her Answer, Rosa Laqui claimed she was merely the administrator and that her son, Ruben Laqui, was the real owner. Receipts showed payments to Rosa from 1974 until July 1990, and MERALCO bills were in her name.
On November 27, 1990, Ruben Laqui wrote to petitioner, asserting ownership and demanding she vacate within ten days to allow his brother to use the premises. Petitioner disregarded the letter. On January 7, 1991, Ruben filed an unlawful detainer complaint (Civil Case No. 91-57903) before the MTC. The MTC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC, ordering petitioner to vacate, pay back rentals with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 25941), which affirmed the RTC with modification, reducing the back rentals. Petitioner then filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether Rosa Laqui or Ruben Laqui is the true owner-lessor of the property.
2. Whether the need of the lessor’s brother to use the premises is a valid ground for ejectment under the Rent Control Law.
3. Whether the period of lease had expired or was suspended by the Rent Control Law.
4. Whether there were arrears in rentals justifying ejectment, considering the consignation of rentals by the petitioner.

RULING

1. On Ownership: The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to resolve the issue of ownership for purposes of the ejectment case. The unlawful detainer complaint was filed by Ruben Laqui, who claimed to be the owner. The relationship between Rosa and Ruben (whether as administrator or otherwise) is immaterial to the ejectment suit, as the action can be maintained by one who has a right of possession. The Court noted that Ruben presented a transfer certificate of title, tax declaration, and tax receipts in his name.
2. On Ejectment Ground (Lessor’s Brother’s Need): The Court held that the need of the lessor’s brother to use the premises is not a valid ground for ejectment under the applicable Rent Control Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, as amended by B.P. Blg. 877). The law allows ejectment if the lessor or his immediate family needs the premises as a residence. A brother is not considered an “immediate member of the family” under the law. Therefore, the stated reason in Ruben’s demand letter was invalid.
3. On Expiry of Lease Period: The Court ruled that the lease, being oral and month-to-month, is considered to be from month to month. Under Article 1687 of the Civil Code, in the absence of a specified period, the courts may fix a longer term for the lease if the lessee has continuously occupied the premises for over one year. Petitioner and her family had occupied the unit for about 17 years. More importantly, the Rent Control Law (B.P. Blg. 877) suspends the lessor’s right to eject upon the expiration of the lease period under Article 1673 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the lease period cannot be a ground for ejectment.
4. On Arrears in Rentals: The Court held that there were no valid arrears in payment that would justify ejectment under Section 5(b) of B.P. Blg. 877. The provision requires arrears in payment of rent for three months. Here, the lessor (Rosa Laqui) refused to accept the tendered rentals. The law requires the lessee, upon such refusal, to deposit the amount by consignation in court, with the city or municipal treasurer, or in a bank in the name of and with notice to the lessor. Petitioner’s deposit with the Barangay Treasurer did not comply with this legal requirement. However, the subsequent consignation case (Civil Case No. 133933) filed by petitioner on November 2, 1990, and decided in her favor by the MTC (a decision affirmed by the RTC and which became final), constituted a valid consignation that retroacted to the date of the first deposit (August 1990). This valid consignation negated any finding of arrears for three months. The ejectment complaint filed on January 7, 1991, was premature, as the consignation case was still pending and the rentals for November and December 1990 were not yet due and demandable at the time of filing.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition was GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court were REVERSED. The decision of the MTC dismissing the ejectment case was REINSTATED. The amount of P9,481.55 deposited by petitioner with the RTC Branch Clerk of Court was ordered released to the private respondent. No costs.