GR 75968; (November, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 75968 November 7, 1991
ANTONIO BENOLIRAO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and EMMANUEL TIMBUNGCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Antonio Benolirao filed an ejectment case against his lessee, private respondent Emmanuel Timbungco, on April 29, 1985, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City. The complaint alleged two grounds under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 (BP 25): unauthorized subleasing and Timbungco’s ownership of another residential house and lot in Las Piñas, which he could use as his residence. Timbungco had leased the Pasay City apartment since 1968, citing proximity to his workplace and his children’s school.
The MTC ruled in favor of Benolirao, a decision affirmed by the RTC but reversed by the Court of Appeals. The CA found the sublease unproven and considered the ownership of the Las Piñas property insufficient for ejectment under the subsequently enacted BP 877. Benolirao elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in not applying BP 25.
ISSUE
Whether the private respondent’s ownership of a residential unit in Las Piñas constitutes a valid ground for ejectment under the applicable law at the time the complaint was filed.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the MTC decision. The Court held that BP 25, not BP 877, was the applicable law as the ejectment complaint was filed on April 29, 1985, before BP 877’s effectivity on June 12, 1985. The well-settled rule is that the law in force at the time a cause of action arises governs.
Under Section 5(d) of BP 25, ejectment is allowed on the ground of “[o]wnership by the lessee of another residential unit which he may use as his residence.” The provision does not require the lessee to be actually residing in the other unit, only that he owns it and may use it as a residence. The Court found Timbungco’s ownership of the Las Piñas property sufficiently established by tax declarations in his name, which are proof of a claim of title, and by his own judicial admissions in his pleadings and a sworn statement that he “resides at Las Piñas.” His argument that ejectment would cause inconvenience due to distance from work and school was deemed irrelevant, as it does not constitute a statutory exception.
The modification introduced by BP 877, which requires the other owned dwelling to be in the same city or municipality, was not controlling. Therefore, the existence of the ground under BP 25 Section 5(d) justified Timbungco’s ejectment.