G.R. No. 129493 , September 25, 1998
TERESITA DIO, petitioner, vs. DRA. ROSALINDA MELO CONCEPCION, respondent.

FACTS

The case involves an action for ejectment. The separate opinion clarifies the remedies available upon a breach of obligation, focusing on rescission in reciprocal obligations and the specific context of lease agreements.

ISSUE

The principal issue addressed is whether an independent judicial action for rescission is necessary for a lessor to terminate a lease agreement and eject a lessee for a violation of the conditions of the lease, or if an extrajudicial remedy is available.

RULING

The right to rescind (or resolve) a reciprocal obligation is generally judicial and must be sought in litigation, as implied in Article 1191 of the Civil Code; mere failure to comply does not automatically produce rescission. Exceptionally, extrajudicial remedies may be available by law or agreement. In lease agreements, Article 1673 of the Civil Code, read with Section 2, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes the lessor to terminate the lease extrajudicially by serving a written demand on the lessee to comply with the lease conditions and vacate, followed by the institution of an ejectment action if the lessee fails to comply. Therefore, in this instance, the only relevant court jurisdiction is that of the first level court in the action for ejectment, and an independent judicial action for rescission is unnecessary.