nature
action
Action for ejectment instituted by George de Castro, on his own behalf
and on behalf of Annie de Castro, Felomina de Castro Uban and Jesus de Castro.
FACTS
De Castro alleged that they are the registered owners of the two-storey
building. (P9K per month). Both parties agreed that effective 1 October
2001, the rental payment shall be increased
from P9K to P15K. Wee failed to pay the increase on rent.
The rental dispute was brought to the Barangay. Since they failed
to reach an amicable settlement, a Certificate was issued. George de
Castro, together with his siblings and co-owners, Annie de Castro, Felomina Peaches de
Castro Uban and Jesus de Castro, filed the Complaint for ejectment before the
MTC.
Although the Complaint stated that it was being filed by all of the resps:
·
Verification and the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping were signed by George
de Castro alone.
·
He subsequently attached the SPAs executed by his sisters Annie and
Felomina
wee’s defenses
·
no agreement between the parties to increase the rents demand for an
increase was exorbitant
·
Resps failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of
conciliation before the Barangay Lupon prior to the filing before
the courts
·
MTC lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment suit, since resps' Complaint
was devoid of any allegation that there was an "unlawful withholding"
of the subject property by the pet.
lower courts
MTC dismissed the case for failure to comply with the prior conciliation
requirement before the Barangay Lupon.
RTC affirmed the dismissal. Since no concession was reached by the
parties to increase such amount to P15K, pet cannot be faulted for
paying only the originally agreed upon monthly rentals.
Resps' failure to refer the matter to the Barangay court
for conciliation process barred the ejectment case, conciliation before
the Lupon being a condition sine qua non in
the filing of ejectment suits.
The allegation in the Complaint was flawed, since resps failed to allege
that there was an "unlawful withholding" taking out from the purview of an action for
unlawful detainer.
Complaint failed to comply with the rule that a co-owner could not maintain an action without joining all the
other co-owners.
CA denied the MR interposed by pet for lack of merit.
issues/ruling
ART.
487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
This article covers all
kinds of action for the recovery of possession:
·
forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal),
·
recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and
·
recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion).
Professor Arturo M.
Tolentino: A co-owner
may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the other
co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the
benefit of all.
Carandang
v. Heirs of De Guzman: a co-owner is not
even a necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete relief
can be afforded even in his absence, thus: All co-owners are real parties in
interest. However, pursuant to NCC 487, any
one of them may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of
co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the
co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an
indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for
a complete relief can be afforded in the suit even without their participation,
since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.
there’s spa anyway
Annie and Felomina each executed a SPA, giving George the authority to
initiate the case.
A power of attorney is an instrument
in writing by which one person, as principal, appoints another as his agent and
confers upon him the authority to perform certain specified acts or
kinds of acts on behalf of the principal.
authority to sign the Verification and the Certificate
of Non-Forum Shopping
Mendoza v. Coronel: The execution of the certification against forum
shopping by the attorney-in-fact in the case at bar is not a violation of the
requirement that the parties must personally sign the same.
Failure by George to attach the SPAs is innocuous, since it is undisputed
that he was granted by his sisters the authority to file the action for
ejectment against pet prior to the institution of the case.
Torres Peaches v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation: the personal
signing of the verification requirement was deemed substantially complied with
when 2/ 25 real parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge
and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the
verification attached to it.
WON failure to allege “unlawful withoulding” is
fatal to the cause of action
NO, what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has
jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of
the relief sought.
Barba v. CA: although the phrase "unlawfully withholding" was not
actually used in her complaint, the Court held that her allegations amounted to
an unlawful withholding of the subject property by therein private resps,
because they continuously refused to vacate the premises even after notice and
demand.
failure of the counsel to attach official receipt
of his ibp dues
Moot and academic, since resps' counsel has already duly complied
therewith.
BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM
Pet: Certification to file action issued
by the Barangay Lupon appended to the resps' Complaint merely
referred to the issue of rental increase and not the matter of ejectment.
The barangay justice system was established primarily
as a means of easing up the congestion of cases in the judicial courts.
The barangay courts is essentially a compulsory arbitration in
character. To ensure this objective, Section 6 of PD 1508 requires the parties
to undergo a conciliation process as a precondition to filing a complaint in
court subject to certain exceptions. PD
No. 1508 is now incorporated in Republic Act No. 7160 (The Local Government
Code), which took effect on 1 January 1992.
While it is true that the Certification refers only to rental increase
and not to the ejectment of pet from the subject property, the submission of
the same for conciliation before the Barangay Lupon constitutes
sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law. Given the particular circumstances of the case at
bar, the conciliation proceedings for the amount of monthly rental should
logically and reasonably include also the matter of the possession of the property
subject of the rental, the lease agreement, and the violation of the terms
thereof.
The contract of lease between the parties did not stipulate a fixed
period. Hence, the parties agreed to the payment of rentals on a monthly basis.
On this score, NCC 1687[1]
The period of such lease is deemed terminated at the end of each month. Without a lease contract, pet has no right of
possession to the subject property and must vacate the same.
Lessor's right to rescind the contract of lease for non-payment of the
demanded increased rental was recognized by this Court in Chua v.
Victorio::
Payment of the rent is one of a lessee's statutory obligations, and,
upon non-payment by pets of the increased rental in Sept 1994, the lessor
acquired the right to avail of any of the three remedies outlined above. (Emphasis supplied.)
Pet is liable for the payment of back rentals, attorney's fees and cost
of the suit. Resps must be duly indemnified for the loss of income from the
subject property on account of pet's refusal to vacate the leased premises.
CA AFFIRMED in toto.
[1] Art. 1687. If
the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from
year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from
month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly;
and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. However, even though a
monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been set, the courts may
fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for
over one year. If the rent is weekly, the courts may likewise determine a
longer period after the lessee has been in possession for over six months. In
case of daily rent, the courts may also fix a longer period after the lessee
has stayed in the place for over one month.
0 comments:
Post a Comment