G.R. No. 146658; October 28, 2002
MANUEL D. MELOTINDOS, petitioner, vs. MELECIO TOBIAS, represented by JOSEFINA PINEDA, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel D. Melotindos, an 87-year-old lawyer, was the lessee on a month-to-month basis since 1953 of the ground floor of a house in Malate, Manila, owned by respondent Melecio Tobias who resided in Canada. In the last quarter of 1995, respondent demanded petitioner either to pay increased rentals or vacate the premises so he and his sick mother could use the house during her medical check-ups in Manila. For two years, the demand to vacate yielded no result, and in 1997, respondent again insisted on raising the rental. On June 1, 1998, respondent asked petitioner to restore the premises for essential repairs, without offering the option of higher rentals. The renovation commenced but stopped because petitioner refused to vacate and neglected to pay rent from May to August 1998. On October 19, 1998, respondent demanded payment of rental arrears and restoration of the house. As petitioner kept possession but did not pay the January 1999 rent (though he had settled the previous four-month arrears), respondent filed an ejectment complaint on February 3, 1999. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) decided in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to vacate, pay rental arrears of P60,000 as of December 1998 plus P6,000 monthly thereafter, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld the MeTC decision in toto. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA, which was denied for late filing, as the registry return receipt showed he received the CA Decision on October 9, 2000, but filed the motion only on October 30, 2000, beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review, asserting his payment of rentals was up to date, that the court should extend his lease under Article 1687 of the Civil Code, and that his receipt of the CA Decision was on October 16, 2000, not October 9, 2000. After respondent filed his Comment, the Supreme Court required petitioner to file a Reply. Instead, petitioner moved for a temporary restraining order, which was denied. When petitioner failed to file the Reply, he was required to show cause. Petitioner then filed a Manifestation seeking compassion for his lapses and prayed for the petition to be “dismissed” as moot and academic due to his alleged ejectment.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals Decision had become final and executory due to the late filing of the motion for reconsideration.
2. Whether the service of the CA Decision, as evidenced by the registry return receipt, was valid.
3. Whether petitioner’s ejectment was legally justified.
4. Whether Article 1687 of the Civil Code applies to grant petitioner an extension of the lease term.

RULING

1. YES, the Court of Appeals Decision had become final and executory. The CA record proved petitioner received the Decision on October 9, 2000, as shown by the registry return receipt. His motion for reconsideration filed on October 30, 2000, was beyond the 15-day reglementary period and did not toll the judgment’s finality. Thus, the assailed Decision was past appellate review and constituted res judicata.
2. YES, the service was valid. The rules accept the efficacy of the return receipt as proof of service, showing the date of receipt and the signature of the receiving agent. Petitioner’s unsubstantiated denial of the recipient’s authority could not prevail over the positive assertion of the postal official, who enjoys the presumption that official duty was regularly performed. Petitioner admitted taking delivery of the same copy, though he claimed receipt on October 16, 2000, and failed to explain or present evidence to disown the authority of the person who signed the return receipt.
3. YES, the ejectment was legally justified. The evidence, including petitioner’s own pleadings, confirmed his default in paying rental fees for more than three months in 1998 and 1999 prior to the filing of the complaint. There was also sufficient basis for the courts to conclude that respondent needed the property in good faith for his family and for necessary repairs, which are legal grounds for ejectment.
4. NO, Article 1687 of the Civil Code does not apply to grant petitioner an extension. The article does not grant a lessee an absolute right to an extension but merely gives courts discretion to allow additional time for the lessee to prepare for ejection. Petitioner’s old age and length of occupancy alone are not just grounds for extension, as he made no substantial improvements hindering his transfer. The Court agreed with the CA that petitioner had effectively been granted an extension of five years from the time of the initial demands in 1995-1996 until the ejectment complaint was filed in 1999 and he was evicted in 2002, which period was more than enough.
The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition for Review for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision in toto. Petitioner and all persons claiming right under him were ORDERED to vacate the leased premises if not yet done, and petitioner was ORDERED to pay rental arrears of P60,000 as of December 1998 plus P6,000 monthly until possession is restored, attorney’s fees of P15,000, and costs of suit.