G.R. NO. 157971 - TRISTAN LOPEZ AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF LETICIA AND CECILIA LOPEZ, VS. LETICIA R. FAJARDO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [petitioner] and against the [respondent] ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under her: To immediately vacate the subject premises describe[d] as No. 1328 Tomas Mapua St., Sta. Cruz, Manila and surrender its peaceful possession to the [petitioner]; To pay [petitioner] the amount of P7,500.00 as back rentals covering the period from July 2000 to September 2000; and to pay [petitioner] the amount of P2,500.00 monthly as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the subject premises known as No. 1328 Tomas Mapua St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, beginning October 2000 and every month thereafter until [respondent] shall have actually vacated the same; To pay [petitioner] the sum of P5,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees, and to pay the costs of the suit. Respondent appealed the MeTC decision to the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC) which, by Decision [13] dated June 7, 2002, affirmed in toto that of the trial court, it holding as follows: x x x From the aforesaid facts, it is clear then that [petitioner] allowed [respondent] to continue to occupy the subject premises on a month-to-month rental terminable at the end of each month, until the [petitioner] sent [respondent] a notice to vacate the subject premises on August 18, 2000 . There is no dispute that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the [petitioner] and the [respondent] that ended on August 31, 2000, as evidenced by [petitioner's] letter dated August 18, 2000. As the rent was paid on a monthly basis, the period of the lease was considered as on a month-to-month basis in accordance with Article 1687 of the New Civil Code . It is a lease with a definite period . In the case at bar, since the [respondent] stopped payment of her monthly rentals since July 2000 up to September 2000, then the lease on said property immediately expired and terminated upon the letter of demand made by the [petitioner] on the [respondent] to vacate the subject premises as of August 2000. Hence, [respondent's] right to stay in the premises came to an end as of August 2000. x x x (Underscoring supplied). Before the Court of Appeals (CA), respondent appealed via Petition for Review with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Ante Order, [14] assigning to the RTC the following errors: THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT PALPABLY ERRED ON A MATTER OF LAW IN FAILING, IF NOT REFUSING, TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT: (1) AT THE TIME OF DEMAND, APPELLANT ONLY HAD AN ALLEGED TOTAL RENTALS IN ARREARS OF TWO MONTHS AND THAT (2) AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE SUBJECT COMPLAINT FOR EJECTMENT, APPELLANT HAD ALREADY CONSIGNED HER RENTALS IN COURT . HENCE THE SUBJECT EJECTMENT SUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OUTRIGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 (b) OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 877. IN THE SAME VEIN, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LIKEWISE PALPABLY ERRED ON A MATTER OF LAW IN FAILING, IF NOT REFUSING TO CONSIDE