GR 149599; (May, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149599. May 16, 2005.
Rudy Lao, petitioner, vs. Jaime Lao, respondent.
FACTS
Spouses Julian and Anita Lao constructed a building on a parcel of land in Balasan, Iloilo, owned by Alfredo Alava. On May 12, 1982, Alava and Anita Lao executed a 35-year Contract of Lease over the property at an annual rental of P120.00, which was not annotated on the title. Petitioner Rudy Lao, who knew of this lease, also rented an adjacent portion of the same property for his business. On March 21, 1995, Rudy purchased the property from Alava and was issued a new title. The property was then classified as commercial, but the old rental rate subsisted.
On July 14, 1997, Rudy filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against respondent Jaime Lao, Anita’s son, who managed the building and business for his mother. Rudy alleged Jaime occupied the portion without any lease agreement and merely through tolerance. Jaime countered that the lessee was his mother, Anita, under the 1982 contract, and he was merely her manager. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled for Rudy, ordering Jaime to vacate and pay rentals. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed with modifications on rental amounts.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint for unlawful detainer was properly filed against respondent Jaime Lao, who was in possession of the property as the agent of the registered lessee, Anita Lao.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the complaint. The action for unlawful detainer was improperly brought against the agent instead of the principal lessee. The cause of action for unlawful detainer under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court accrues only against the lessee, sublessee, or any person claiming under them. Respondent Jaime Lao was in possession of the property not in his own right but as the manager and agent of his mother, Anita Lao, the legitimate lessee under the 1982 contract. The petitioner’s proper recourse was to file the ejectment suit against Anita Lao as the real party in interest. A judgment against the lessee would be binding on her agents, guests, or privies occupying the premises, including the respondent. By suing the agent directly, the petitioner attempted an indirect method to circumvent the subsisting lease contract, which is not permitted. The Court found that the petitioner had no cause of action for unlawful detainer against the respondent, as the respondent’s possession was derived from and authorized by the lawful lessee.