GR 127465; (October, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127465; October 25, 2001
SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS, TIMOTEO ANTOLIN, AURORA PEGOLLO, and BENJAMIN MARIANO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 12th DIVISION, and MAUNLAD HOMES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Maunlad Homes, Inc., the registered owner of a parcel of land in Malolos, Bulacan, filed a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioners Timoteo Antolin, Ellen dela Cruz, and Nicetas delos Santos. Maunlad alleged that petitioners occupied portions of the property merely through tolerance and had refused to vacate despite demands. Petitioners countered that they were legitimate lessees of the former owners, the Sandiko brothers, and that their lease was not terminated by the sale to Maunlad. They claimed a violation of their right of first refusal under P.D. No. 1517, asserting they were not informed of the sale. They also filed a separate action to annul the sale. The two cases were consolidated.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether petitioners could invoke the right of first refusal under P.D. No. 1517; and (2) whether Batas Pambansa Blg. 877, which prohibits ejectment of a lessee on the ground of sale, applied to protect petitioners from ejectment.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, ruling against the petitioners. On the first issue, P.D. No. 1517 (the Urban Land Reform Law) and its conferred right of first refusal were held inapplicable. The law benefits only legitimate tenants within declared urban land reform zones. The Court upheld the appellate court’s finding that petitioners were not legitimate tenants but mere occupants by tolerance, as no rentals were paid after 1986 and demands to vacate were made. Furthermore, it took judicial notice that no part of Bulacan had been declared an urban land reform area.
On the second issue, B.P. Blg. 877 (the Rent Control Law) did not bar ejectment. While Section 5(f) prohibits ejecting a lessee solely because the property was sold, this protection presupposes a subsisting lease. The Court found the lease, which provided for yearly rentals, was for a definite period expiring at the end of each year under Article 1687 of the Civil Code. The lease was not renewed; thus, it had expired. Consequently, the statutory prohibition against ejectment on the ground of sale was no longer applicable. The Court also noted that any alleged contract of sale between petitioners and the Sandikos was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds for not being in writing.