GR L 16574; (February, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16574; February 28, 1964
ALIPIO N. CASILAN and PURITA GANGCAYCO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. RAYMOND TOMASSI, SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
This case involves an action for unlawful detainer originally filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Guiuan, Samar. Appellants Alipio Casilan and Purita Gangcayco alleged they leased two quonset huts to appellees under a verbal contract starting November 1, 1949, with a monthly rental of P400. They claimed appellees failed to pay rentals from the start despite demands for payment. The Justice of the Peace Court, after proceeding with trial in the appellees’ absence due to a denied postponement, rendered judgment in favor of the appellants, ordering the appellees to vacate and pay accrued rentals.
The case had a protracted procedural history. Upon appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Samar, the CFI initially dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, a decision reversed by the Supreme Court with an order for trial on the merits. After remand and another round of appeals, the CFI finally conducted a trial. However, the CFI ultimately dismissed the complaint again, this time on the ground that the Justice of the Peace Court never acquired original jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Justice of the Peace Court validly acquired original jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action based on the allegations in the appellants’ complaint.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s dismissal, ruling that the Justice of the Peace Court did not acquire jurisdiction. The legal logic hinges on the indispensable jurisdictional requirement for an unlawful detainer suit: the complaint must allege that the lessor made a demand upon the lessee to vacate the premises, and the lessee refused to comply. The Court meticulously examined the complaint and found it contained only an allegation of demand for payment of unpaid rentals. Crucially, it lacked any allegation of a demand to vacate.
The Court reiterated the established doctrine, citing Canaynay vs. Sarmiento, that mere failure to pay rent does not automatically render a tenant’s possession unlawful. A landlord may choose to tolerate a defaulting tenant’s continued occupancy indefinitely. The tenant’s possession only becomes unlawful, and an action for unlawful detainer properly accrues, when the landlord withdraws that consent by making a demand to vacate and the tenant refuses. Since the appellants’ complaint failed to allege this essential demand to vacate, it did not state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Consequently, the Justice of the Peace Court had no jurisdiction to try the case, and the CFI, acting as an appellate court, correctly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.