G.R. No. 76851 and G.R. No. 78431 , March 19, 1990
AURORA PASCUA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents. and Sps. EDUARDO D. CAÑARES and LORETA E. CAÑARES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and Sps. ERLINDA ASTROLOGIO and NOLI ASTROLOGIO, respondents.

FACTS

The spouses Eduardo and Loreta Cañares owned a two-door apartment building in Manila, leased to Aurora Pascua and the spouses Noli and Erlinda Astrologio. The Cañareses themselves had been renting another apartment for twenty years. In 1984, their own landlord demanded they vacate their rented home. Consequently, the Cañareses sent demand letters to their lessees, Pascua and the Astrologios, stating their need to occupy their own property and giving them time to leave. The lessees refused.
The Cañareses filed ejectment complaints in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). Both MTC branches ruled in favor of the Cañareses, ordering the lessees to vacate. The Regional Trial Court affirmed these decisions. On appeal, the Court of Appeals issued divergent rulings: it dismissed Pascua’s petition but ruled in favor of the Astrologios, holding the Cañareses failed to allege and prove they did not own any other available residential unit in Manila.

ISSUE

The legal issues were: (1) Whether the Cañareses’ failure to allege in their complaint that they owned no other available residential unit in Manila was fatal to their cause of action; and (2) Whether the lessees could be ejected under Article 1673 of the Civil Code despite Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, as amended.

RULING

On the first issue, the Supreme Court held the initial formal deficiency in the complaint was cured. While the complaint itself lacked the specific allegation, the demand letter attached as an annex explicitly stated the Cañareses had no house of their own and needed to occupy their property. Following established doctrine, when evidence supplying a defective complaint’s necessary allegations is admitted without objection, it cures the defect. The Astrologios never raised this specific ground in their answer or in the lower courts, effectively waiving the objection. Procedural rules should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice.
On the second issue, the Court ruled the ejectment was proper. Section 6 of B.P. Blg. 25 suspended Article 1673 of the Civil Code except for leases with a definite period. Citing Ong v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that a lease becomes one for a definite period once the lessor makes a demand to vacate for a legitimate ground under the law, like the owner’s need for personal use. The Cañareses’ demand letters, based on their bona fide need to occupy their own property, converted the month-to-month leases into leases for a definite period, placing the case within the exception. The requirements of B.P. Blg. 25 having been satisfied, the Cañareses were entitled to recover possession. The Court affirmed the decision against Pascua but reversed the decision favoring the Astrologios, reinstating the lower court’s judgment for their ejectment.