G.R. No. 49852 October 19, 1989
EMILIA TENGCO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BENJAMIN CIFRA JR., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Benjamin Cifra Jr. filed an action for unlawful detainer against petitioner Emilia Tengco before the Municipal Court of Navotas. Cifra alleged he was the owner of a property leased to Tengco, who failed to pay stipulated rentals despite demands. The municipal court ruled in favor of Cifra, ordering Tengco to vacate the premises and pay rental arrears and attorney’s fees. Tengco appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which affirmed the municipal court’s decision in toto. Subsequently, Tengco filed an “Appeal by Way of Certiorari” with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, finding the lower court’s decision supported by substantial evidence. Tengco’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the lower courts’ decisions ordering Tengco’s ejectment and payment of arrears.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court found no merit in Tengco’s contentions. Firstly, on the issue of ownership, the Court reiterated the doctrine that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord at the commencement of the landlord-tenant relation. Tengco, as a lessee, could not question Cifra’s claim of ownership. Secondly, regarding her defense of mora accipiendi (the creditor’s delay in accepting payment), the Court held it was unavailing. Tengco alleged the collector refused her tender of payment. However, the record showed the property’s ownership had been transferred to Cifra, and the collector (Cifra’s sister) no longer had authority to accept payment. The Court ruled that under these circumstances, the proper remedy for Tengco was to make a judicial consignation of the rentals due to be released from her obligation, which she failed to do. Her mere tender of payment to an unauthorized person was insufficient.
Thirdly, the Court rejected the claim of laches. While Tengco’s arrears dated back to February 1974, the Court agreed with the appellate court’s reasoning that mere failure to pay rent does not automatically make possession unlawful; it is the failure to pay after a valid demand to vacate that constitutes unlawful detainer. Cifra made a demand on August 23, 1976, and filed the ejectment case on September 16, 1976, which was prompt. Finally, the Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts, which are generally binding absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The petition was denied for lack of merit.