GR 152614; (September, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152614 ; September 30, 2009
SALVADOR A. FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, vs. CRISTINA D. AMAGNA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Cristina Amagna, as co-owner and administratrix, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against petitioner Salvador Fernandez before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). She alleged Fernandez leased a portion of her property in Pandacan, Manila on a month-to-month basis at ₱1,300 monthly. After Fernandez failed to pay rentals starting July 1995, she sent a demand letter on April 11, 1996, to pay and vacate, which he refused. Fernandez countered that he had been renting for over 50 years at only ₱420 monthly through a neighborhood association, had made substantial improvements, and had no arrears. He later filed a consignation case in May 1997, depositing arrears at the ₱420 rate. The MeTC ruled for Amagna, ordering Fernandez to vacate, pay ₱1,300 monthly from July 1995, and remove his structures. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the MeTC decision.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the ejectment order despite petitioner’s claims regarding a local ordinance for land acquisition and the applicability of Presidential Decree No. 1517’s “no eviction rule.”
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the ejectment itself, the lease was month-to-month, terminable at the end of any month upon demand. Respondent’s demand letter dated April 11, 1996, validly terminated the lease. Petitioner’s consignation in May 1997, made after the ejectment suit was filed in September 1996, did not cure his default or negate the cause of action. The factual findings of the lower courts on the existence of the lease, the default, and the valid demand are conclusive.
Second, petitioner’s new arguments based on Manila City Ordinance No. 8020 and P.D. No. 1517 (the Urban Land Reform Law) cannot be entertained. These grounds were not raised in the proceedings before the MeTC, RTC, or CA. Points of law, theories, and defenses not brought to the attention of the lower courts will not be considered for the first time on appeal, as to do so would be offensive to basic rules of fair play and procedure. Furthermore, P.D. No. 1517’s “no eviction rule” applies to identified areas proclaimed as Urban Land Reform Zones. Petitioner failed to present competent evidence, such as a presidential proclamation or an official ordinance, to prove the subject property was within such a zone. His mere allegation is insufficient. The ejectment order, having become final and executory, must be upheld.