143. LAUREANO v.
ADIL & ONG CU demanded the tenants including the petitioner to vacate the
GR L-43345 - July 29, 1976
AQUINO
FACTS:
Petitioner Laureano leased two lots to Respondent Ong Cu
which expiredPetitioner filed an ejectment suit against
respondent after failing to vacate the lots and remove his
improvements therein. The city court ordered in favor of the
petitioner to restore the possession of the lots and to pay the
use and occupation, with interest plus damages and attorney’s
fees.
Respondent then appealed to the Court of First Instance
asking the Court to approve ex parte his supersedeas bond and
to fix the rental value of the two lots. It was granted by the
court. The case was assigned to the sala of the respondent
Judge.
Petitioner then filed a motion for preliminary mandatory
injunction, restoring the possession of her lots and asking for
immediate execution of the city court’s judgement and that
respondent’s appeal is frivolous and dilatory. However, the
court upheld the order of the lower court. Hence, the petition.
ISSUE:
WON the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion in
denying petitioner’s motions for execution and mandatory
injunction.
RULING:
YES. The city court erred in issuing ex parte an order granting
the respondent’s motion for the supersedeas bond and
amount of monthly payments in contravention to Section 8,
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent made supersedeas bond and deposits but were
inadequate to stay execution. Thus,petitioner was entitled as
a matter of right to the immediate execution of the city court’s
judgment.
It results that the lower court gravely abused its discretion in
not granting the writ of mandatory injunction. Its questioned
orders were predicated on erroneous assumptions.
144. DELA CRUZ v. C.A. & TE
GR NO. 139442 December 6, 2006
VELASCO, JR.
FACTS:
The Reyes family owned the lot leased by the petitioner for 40
years. A fire struck and burned houses including the
petitioner’s. After the fire, they returned to the said lot and
rebuilt their houses; simultaneously, the Reyes family
lot but the latter did not comply.
The disputed lot was sold to herein respondent. Petitioner did
not give up the lot. She was sent a written demand which she
ignored, prompting respondent to initiate conciliation
proceedings at the barangay level. Failing to settle, the
respondent filed an ejectment case with damages before the
MeTC, ordering petitioner to vacate the lot. Petitioner
appealed to RTC and thus, ruling in her favor. It dismissed the
respondent’s complaint on the ground that RTC had
jurisdiction over it and it had already prescribed. Respondent
then appealed to CA, reinstating the MeTC’s decision.
ISSUE:
1. WON the ejectment complaint was a forcible entry case.
2. WON 1 year had already elapsed.
3. WON the MeTC had jurisdiction over the complaint.
4. WON the petitioner is entitled to the physical possession of
the lot or possession de facto.
RULING:
1. NO. The complaint was an unlawful detainer case. After the
fire, the Reyeses tolerated the continued occupany of
petitioner. When the lot was sold to respondent, for a time,
she also tolerated the petitioner but then decided to eject the
latter by sending several demands.
2. NO. The unlawful possession is to be counted from the date
of the demand to vacate. Since the last demand was sent on
January 14, 1997 and the action was filed in September, 8,
1997, the action was instituted well within the 1 year period
reckoned from the date when the last demand was sent.
3. The nature of the complaint was one of unlawful detainer
and it was constituted within the 1 year period, then the MeTC
had jurisdiction over the case.
4. NO. The court ruled in favor of the respondent.
During the duration of the lease, the petitioner’s possession
was legal but it became unlawful after the fire when the lease
contracts were deemed terminated and demands were made
for the tenants to return possession of the lot.
Petitioner fully knows that her stay is because of leniency and
generosity of the Reyeses and the respondent. Her
acquiescence to the use of the lot carries with it an implicit and
assumed commitment that she would leave when it is needed
by the owner. Petitioner breached the promise to vacate the
lot upon demand, she lost her right to physical possession of
the lot.
145. LAO v. SUAREZ
 130 Phil 230
REYES
FACTS:
Respondents leased a parcel of land to the petitioner.
Respondents filed a suit in the Justice of Peace Court against
the petitioner for non-payment of monthly rentals and prayed
that petitioner vacate the land and pay the unpaid rentals with
interest, attorney’s fees and damages. In his answer, the
petitioner alleged that he had tendered rentals due and upon
refusal, consigned them with the Court. The Court ruled in
favor of the respondents, prompting the petitioner to appeal
to the Court of First Instance. The latter court affirmed the
decision of the lower court. It was now brought before the
Supreme Court on certiorari.
ISSUE:
WON the respondents have the right to rescind the lease upon
violation of its terms and conditions
RULING:
YES. The court found that the tenant never tendered or
consigned in court the rentals due and his failure to do so was
a breach that entitled the lessors to rescind the contract and
terminate the lease. Even without such stipulation, it would be
the right of the landlords to terminate the lease under Article
1673 (3), Civil Code.
146. BERNABE v. LUNA, CFI & GACUYA
G.R. No. L-57645 February 27, 1987
PARAS
FACTS:
Petitioners allege they own the parcel of land in Tondo, Manila
which the respondent constructed a house on said lot without
the latter’s permission. Petitioners sent a written demand for
removal of said house and for the recovery of damages; and
that defendant refused and failed to comply. Respondent
court dismissed the complaint on the view that it was an
ejectment case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City
Court of Manila.
ISSUE:
WON the City Court (MeTC) has exclusive jurisdiction over this
case.
RULING:
YES. The case is clearly one of illegal detainer which must be
filed within one year from the date of the last demand. When
the complaint against private respondent was filed, the one
year period had not yet lapsed. The court a quo did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case and the proper action should have
been one of Unlawful Detainer which necessarily falls within
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the City Court.
147. F. S. DIVINAGRACIA AGRO-COMMERCIAL INC. v. C.A. &
FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. L-47350 April 21, 1981
GUERRERO
FACTS:
Private respondent leased the building and lot owned by the
petitioner. He was then informed of the termination of the
lease of the premises which he refused to vacate. Upon refusal
of the payment of the rent, private respondent informed
petitioner that he was depositing his rentals with the court.
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by herein
petitioner against private respondent before the City Court of
Iloilo. It was dismissed and was ordered that the private
respondent may continue to lease the premises for seven and
a half (7 ½) years. Upon appeal by the petitioner, the Court of
First Instance modified the decision by extending the duration
of the lease to one (1) year. Private respondent filed a petition
for review before the Court of Appeals which granted another
five (5) years from the decision of the CFI.
ISSUE:
WON the Respondent Court acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of its jurisdiction
RULING:
NO. Considering both Articles 1687 and 1197 together, it is at
once clear and evident that the court is accorded the power to
fix a longer term for the lease, which power is potestative or
discretionary in nature. This prerogative is addressed to the
court's sound judgment and is controlled by equitable
considerations. The court may fix a longer term where equities
come into play demanding an extension.
148. PAULO RODRIGUEZ and ANTOLIN A. JARIOL (joint-
executors of the estate of HUMILIANO RODRIGUEZ), v.
ABRAJANO & CO., INC.
G.R. No. L-25604 April 30, 1969
REYES
FACTS: