G.R. No. L-73425 October 15, 1986
MARGARITA S. MAYORES and LUCIA D. ABENA, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. NICOLAS A. GEROCHI, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch CXXXIX, et al, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, septuagenarian spinsters and co-owners of a duplex apartment, filed an ejectment case against their lessees, private respondents, before the Makati Municipal Trial Court. They sought to repossess the leased unit, invoking Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, which allows ejectment if the owner needs the property for personal use or for an immediate family member’s use. Petitioners, being old and sickly, alleged they needed the premises to be occupied by their nieces, Alma Abena-Salazar and Cleofe Reyes, who would attend to their daily needs and care. They served the required three-month notice to vacate. The MTC ruled in their favor, ordering the lessees to vacate.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court reversed the MTC decision. The RTC, while sympathetic, held that the law’s phrase “immediate member of his family” did not encompass nieces, and thus the ground for ejectment was not legally sufficient. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the RTC’s decision, leading petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners, elderly and infirm owners, have a legal right to repossess their property for their personal need to accommodate caregivers (their nieces) under the provisions of B.P. Blg. 25, notwithstanding that the intended occupants are not “immediate members” of the family as strictly defined.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts. The legal logic centers on a humanitarian and purposive interpretation of the law, rather than a rigid, literal one. The Court clarified that the primary basis for repossession was not merely to provide housing for the nieces. It was the petitioners’ own imperative and personal need, due to advanced age and infirmity, to have live-in caregivers (their nieces) reside with them to provide necessary assistance and companionship. This constitutes a legitimate “need of the owner/lessor to repossess his property for his own use” under the law.
The Court emphasized that denying relief based on a strict interpretation that excludes nieces from the definition of “immediate family” would lead to an “unkind and oppressive application of the law.” It would unjustly leave the elderly petitioners without recourse to secure essential live-in care within their own home. The decision aligns with established jurisprudence, such as Ongchengco v. City Court of Zamboanga and Sinclair v. Court of Appeals, which recognize exemptions from restrictive lease laws for humanitarian reasons when an owner demonstrates extreme necessity for personal use. Therefore, the petitioners’ dire personal circumstances warranted the granting of their ejectment suit. The Court ordered the private respondents to vacate the premises and pay accrued rentals and attorney’s fees.