GR 79670; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 79670; February 19, 1991
SPS. ARTURO LIPATA and LUZMINDA LIPATA & SPS. ALFONSO TIQUIA and MONSERRAT TIQUIA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAFAEL M. DECLARO, RTC JUDGE BRANCH 13, MANILA AND FLORANTE ESTRADA, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners were lessees of residential premises owned by Arcadio Yupangco and Priscilla Gregorio. Private respondent Florante Estrada purchased the property on August 30, 1978. On October 7, 1978, Estrada demanded that the petitioners vacate the premises, stating his need to occupy the property for his own family’s residence as they were merely staying in the cramped ground floor of his parents’ house. A final demand was made on April 18, 1979. Estrada ceased collecting rentals thereafter. The petitioners filed a consignation case for their rental payments on November 28, 1979. Estrada eventually filed an ejectment case on December 8, 1980. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Estrada, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the private respondent, as the new owner of the leased property, is entitled to eject the lessees on the ground of personal need under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the application of Section 5(c) of BP 25, which permits ejectment if the owner needs the property for personal or family use, provided specific requisites are met. The Court found all requisites satisfied. First, Estrada genuinely needed the property, a factual finding binding on the Supreme Court. Second, he did not own any other available residential unit. Third, the requisite three-month notice was complied with, as the demands to vacate given in 1978 and 1979 preceded the 1980 complaint by a considerable period. Fourth, the period of the lease had expired. The lease was without a definite term, and rentals, though previously paid quarterly, were treated as monthly after Estrada stopped collection following his demand to vacate. Applying Article 1687 of the Civil Code, a lease without a fixed period where rent is paid monthly is deemed a month-to-month lease. Consequently, the lease term had expired by the time the ejectment suit was filed. The Court thus held that the new owner could rightfully repossess the property based on personal need, as the lease was terminable and all statutory conditions for ejectment under BP 25 were fulfilled.