GR 78538; (October, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 78538 October 25, 1989
BELLA S.D. UY, assisted by her husband BENJAMIN REYES UY, SR., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and NICANOR PADILLA, respondents.
FACTS
The private respondent, Nicanor Padilla, filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Bella S.D. Uy for failure to pay monthly rentals from September 1978. The petitioner leased a unit in Padilla’s building under a verbal contract, with the rent gradually increasing to P80.00 per month. In September 1978, Padilla’s collector demanded an increased rent of P150.00 and refused to accept the petitioner’s tender of P80.00. This refusal continued for subsequent months. The petitioner claimed the increase was unlawful under prevailing rental control laws.
The City Court ruled in favor of Padilla, ordering ejectment and payment of arrears and attorney’s fees. This decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and later, with modification, by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that her refusal to pay the unilateral and illegal increase did not constitute arrears justifying ejectment and that Padilla’s subsequent acceptance of a check for back rentals at the old rate legitimized her possession.
ISSUE
The main issue is whether the petitioner incurred arrears in payment of rent, a ground for judicial ejectment under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, despite her claim that the lessor’s demand for an increased rental was illegal and her tender of payment at the old rate was refused.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision ordering ejectment. The legal logic centers on the application of BP Blg. 25, which allows ejectment for arrears in payment of rent for three months. The Court found that the petitioner was in arrears for eight months. Crucially, the law provides a specific remedy for a lessee when a lessor refuses to accept payment: consignation. The petitioner was obligated to deposit the rentals, by way of consignation, in court or in a bank in the name of and with notice to the lessor. Her mere tender of payment, which was refused, was insufficient to discharge her obligation and prevent the accrual of arrears.
The Court rejected the argument that the lessor’s acceptance of a check for back payments in 1979 converted her possession from illegal to legal. The ejectment action was already pending, and such acceptance did not waive the ground for ejectment which had already accrued. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner’s consignation in a bank was made only in 1984, a delay of over four years from the initial refusal, which was not in compliance with the legal requirement. The lessor was thus correct in seeking ejectment, and the lessee was liable for both rentals in arrears and reasonable compensation for continued use.