GR 141324; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141324; July 8, 2003
SPOUSES VIRGINIA JUNSON and EMILIO JUNSON and CIRILA TAN, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES BENEDICTA B. MARTINEZ and ANTONIO MARTINEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent spouses Martinez are the registered owners of parcels of land in Caloocan City. Petitioners Junson and Tan are lessees of portions thereof, where they built their houses. On June 21, 1985, the parties executed written agreements allowing petitioners to continue leasing on a month-to-month basis, terminable by either party upon three months’ notice. In March and May 1988, respondents notified petitioners Tan and Junson, respectively, that they needed the property for their own use and gave them three months to vacate rent-free. Respondents subsequently stopped collecting rentals.
Despite the notices, petitioners failed to vacate. They instead deposited rentals in a bank under respondent Benedicta Martinez’s name. On July 18, 1994, petitioners filed petitions for consignation with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and deposited rentals there. Meanwhile, after failed barangay conciliation, respondents filed unlawful detainer cases against petitioners. The consignation and ejectment cases were consolidated.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower courts’ decisions ordering the ejectment of petitioners, awarding attorney’s fees, and upholding compliance with the barangay conciliation requirement.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court emphasized it is not a trier of facts and found no reason to deviate from the concurrent factual findings of the MeTC, RTC, and Court of Appeals. On the substantive merits, the Court ruled the ejectment was justified. The lease was on a month-to-month basis, a contract with a definite period. Under Article 1687 of the Civil Code, when the lessor needs the property for personal use, the lease is deemed terminated at the end of the month following a proper demand to vacate. Respondents’ 1988 notices, which also stopped rent collection, constituted a valid demand, transforming petitioners’ possession into one of mere tolerance.
Regarding barangay conciliation, non-compliance is not a jurisdictional defect that strips a court of authority, especially when not seasonably raised in the answer. Petitioners failed to make a timely objection. Finally, the award of attorney’s fees was deemed reasonable under Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code, as petitioners’ unlawful retention compelled respondents to litigate to protect their interest. The Court warned against dilatory tactics.