ASSIGNMENT NO.
2: NATURE AND EFFECTS OF OBLIGATIONS
[G.R. No. 77648 August 7, 1989
CETUS DEVELOPMENT, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ONG TENG, respondents.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The property at 512 Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, which was
formerly owned by Susana Realty, was leased to the six private
respondents. However, at some point in March 1984, Susana Realty sold
the leased property to the petitioner, Cetus Development, Inc., a
corporation that was duly organized and existing under Philippine law. The
petitioner further argues that its failure to send a collector to collect the
rentals cannot be regarded as a valid defense because sending a collector
is not one of the lessor's obligations under Article 1654. In three
subsequent months, the respondents failed to pay their monthly individual
rentals because no collector arrived.
As a result, the petitioner demanded in writing that each of the private
respondents leave the subject property and reimburse the petitioner for the
three months of unpaid rent within fifteen (15) days of receiving the letter.
In exchange for the petitioner accepting the rent arrears that the private
respondents had paid, the petitioner unilaterally stipulated that the
acceptance would not preclude the petitioner from filing an ejectment suit
should the private respondent fail to vacate the premises as required by
the letter. The petitioner submitted allegations of ejectment against the
respondents to the Metropolitan Trial Court.
2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no morethan3sentences)
Each of the six (6) private responders offered a unified defense. They
stated that ever since the premises were occupied, they have paid their
monthly rental through a lessor's collector; that the reason they were
unable to pay for the months of July, August, and September 1984 was
because the petitioner, as the new owner, had neglected to send a
collector; that they were unsure of where to send their rent payments; that
a while later, one of the respondents called the petitioner's office to ask
where they would send such payments, and he was informed that a
collector would be sent to receive the same; that the petitioner never sent
a collector; instead, they received a uniform demand letter.
Following a move for case consolidation submitted by the private
respondents through counsel, the six cases were combined and assigned
to the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch XII, under the direction of
Judge Eduardo S. Quintos, Jr. In its conclusion dismissing the six cases,
the trial court made a relevant ruling on June 4, 1985.
3. Decisions of the lower courts
This serves as the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila's decision
to dismiss these cases without making a cost determination. The
appeal was denied for lack of merit both the Court of Appeals and the
Regional Trial Court.
ISSUE:
4. Issue/s (one sentence)
Considering that the petitioner demanded payment from the private
respondents for their back rentals, and that the respondents promptly
submitted money, which the petitioner accepted, raises questions about
whether there was a basis for action at the time the complaints for
unlawful detention were filed.
HELD:
5. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The respondent Court of Appeals' decision dated January 30,
1987, is hereby AFFIRMED, and the petition for review on certiorari is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
6. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue
relevant to the topic under discussion)
It is abundantly evident that there is no ejectment cause of action in
the instance at hand. As of now, the private responses have not missed
three months' worth of rent payments. Given that the specific verbal lease
agreements, which were month-to-month in nature, were not alleged and
proven, the general rule regarding the necessity of demand—that is, that
an obligation is in default when its creditor demands payment at maturity or
at any point thereafter—applies. The New Civil Code's Article 1169 makes
this clear when it states that "those obliged to deliver or to do something
incur delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands
from them the fulfillment of their obligation." The petitioner has not
demonstrated that its case falls under any of the following exceptions,
which state that demands are not necessary: (a) when the law or the
obligation so declares; (b) when it is clear from the nature and
circumstances of the obligation that time is of the essence of the contract;
and (c) when demand would be pointless, such as when the obligor has
rendered it beyond his capacity to perform.
