GR 178527; (November, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178527 ; November 27, 2009
JOVEN YUKI, JR., Petitioner, vs. WELLINGTON CO, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Joven Yuki, Jr. was the lessee of a commercial space owned by Joseph Chua. The last written lease contract expired on December 31, 2003. In November 2003, Chua informed petitioner he had sold the property to respondent Wellington Co and instructed petitioner to pay rent to the new owner. After the lease expired, petitioner refused to vacate. Respondent sent notices to vacate, but petitioner refused to receive them. Respondent thus filed an unlawful detainer complaint.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled for respondent, ordering petitioner to vacate and pay compensation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, finding no valid demand to vacate. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the MeTC decision, holding that petitioner’s refusal to receive the notices constituted a waiver, and demand was properly served at his premises. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a valid demand to vacate was made upon the petitioner, a requisite for an unlawful detainer action.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that a valid demand was indeed made. For unlawful detainer, the lessor must make a demand to pay or comply with the lease conditions and to vacate. This demand is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The Court found that respondent sent a formal demand letter by registered mail, but petitioner failed to claim it. Another copy was personally served at petitioner’s business address, as evidenced by an affidavit of service.
The legal logic is that a party cannot benefit from deliberately refusing to acknowledge receipt of a judicial or extrajudicial demand. Service of demand at the defendant’s residence or place of business, especially when the defendant evades service, is deemed sufficient. Petitioner’s refusal to receive the notices was a fraudulent machination to frustrate the lawful demand. His continued possession after the lease expiry and his refusal to accept the demand rendered his occupancy unlawful. The Court emphasized that such tactics should not prejudice the owner’s right to enjoy his property. The claim of an implied new lease was also rejected, as the lessor’s demand letters constituted clear notice to the contrary, negating any implied renewal under Article 1670 of the Civil Code.