G.R. No. L-57518. November 25, 1983
LUCAS BARASI, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ROBERTO ASISTIDO, RESPONDENTS.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision
of the then Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court) in CA-G.R. No.
SP-10690 entitled Roberto Asistido vs. Hon. Floreliana Castro-Bartolome, et
al., reversing the questioned judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Branch XV, at Makati, in an Ejectment case.
The facts are: On
November 1, 1976, petitioner bought a residential house from Jose L. Manzano,
Sr., located at 652-B Escuela St., Guadalupe, Makati, Metro Manila, because he
and his family were being ejected by their landlord from premises they were
leasing at 398 Tanguile Street, Fort Bonifacio, Metro Manila. Petitioner was aware that, at the time of
purchase, private respondent was renting said residential house under a verbal
lease agreement on a month-to month basis for P110.00. Petitioner and Jose L. Manzano, Sr. informed
private-respondent-lessee of the sale and requested the latter to vacate the
premises. Private respondent promised
to vacate in February, 1977, and petitioner agreed to condone all rentals from
December 1976 to February 1977. At the
end of February, private respondent asked for a grace period of one (1) month
for the sake of his children who were studying, to which petitioner agreed and
furthere condoned the rental for March 1977. Thereafter, petitioner demanded that private respondent vacate the
premises. Private respondent refused.
On September 13, 1977, petitioner filed a complaint for
ejectment, on the ground of personal use and failure to pay rent, before the
Municipal Court of Makati, Branch I. On
June 25, 1979, said Court sustained petitioner on the basis of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 25. This was affirmed by the Court
of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XV, at Makati, on January 26, 1980 in a
Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff
Lucas P. Barasi and against defendant Roberto Asistido, ordering defendant; and
any and all persons claiming under him or in a representative capacity or in
any capacity whatsoever, to immediately vacate the premises he is occupying at
652-B Escuela St., Guadalupe, Makati, Metro Manila, and to turn over possession
thereof to plaintiff, and to pay plaintiff the sum of P110.00 a month as
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises from April
1977 until he finally vacates, and to pay P500.00 as reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.”
However, the then Court of Appeals, on review, reversed the
decision of the Courts below upon the following ratiocination:
“However, the courts below erred applying Batas Blg. 25 in
favor of the private respondent even granting that he needs the house for his
own and his family’s use, for the following reasons:
1. Letter of Instruction No. 768, issued on
November 16, 1978 for the proper implementation of Presidential Decree No. 20,
the quondam Rental Law, had used the single word ‘lessor’ while par. (c) of
Sec. 5 of Batas Blg. 25 uses the term ‘owner/lessor’. In Reyes, et al vs. Hon. Emeterio Cui, et al., CA-G.R. No.
SP-08974-R, decided September 24, 1979, this Court gave the reason why the new
law should not extend to the buyer of leased property, as follows:
‘Furthermore, We accept petitioners’ contention that the provisions
of par. 3, subpar. (b) of LOI No. 768, allowing the lessor to seek judicial
ejectment of the lessee if he can prove he has no other dwelling unit
available for his own use or his immediate family, should be construed and have
reference only to the original owner or original lessor and not to a subsequent
transferee of the latter. Any other
consideration, as to include the transferee by purchase such as in this
instance the private respondents herein, who before buying the property were
even fully aware of the lease of the premises long enjoyed by the petitioners
for more than ten years, would allow the circumvention of and negate the intent
and spirit of Pres. Decree No. 20, the avowed purpose of which is to protect
and assist the low income families comprising the bulk of rented dwelling
place occupants.’
2. In light of the avowed policy of the New
Society to give protection and shelter to low-income families in the leasing of
residential units, We believe and so hold that the buyer of leased property,
like the herein private respondent, is just the same not within the ambit or
contemplation of the broader term ‘owner/lessor’ in par. (c) of Sec. 5 of Batas
Blg. 25 because:
(1) Section 2, par. e, Batas Blg. 25, definition
of terms provides that the term ‘owner/lessor’ includes ‘the owner or
administrator’s or agents of the owner of the residential unit.’ It does not
mention the buyer or transferee of the property from the original owner or
original lessor; and,
(2) Section 2, par. b, Batas Blg. 25, definition
of terms, provides that the term ‘residential unit’ refers to an apartment,
house and or land on which another’s dwelling is located used for residential
purposes x x x’ The term ‘owner/lessor’ should be limited and have reference
only to the lessor under a contract of lease and to the owner of the land on which
the dwelling of another has been built.”
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the
Appellate Court, he filed the instant Petition contending that:
(a) The respondent Court of Appeals committed
grave error in law when it declared that petitioner is not within the ambit or
meaning of the term ‘owner/ lessor’ as the term is used in Par. 5(a) [should be
5(c)] of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25; and
(b) The respondent Court of Appeals committed
grave abuse of discretion when it held that private respondent had validly
deposited the unpaid rentals with the bank.
The pivotal question to resolve is whether or not a new owner of
leased premises purchased from the original owner/lessor can avail of the right
to recover possession of the property on the ground of personal use under BP
Blg. 25. Stated differently, is the
term owner/lessor as used in said statute confined only to the original
owner/lessor?
The pertinent provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, reads:
Sec. 5. Grounds for
Judicial Ejectment. – Ejectment shall
be allowed on the following grounds:
x x x
c. Need of owner/lessor to repossess his
property for his own use or for the use of any immediate member of his family
as a residential unit, such owner or immediate member not being the owner of
any other available residential unit: Provided, however, that the period of lease has expired: Provided, further, that the lessor has given
the lessee notice three months in advance of the lessor’s intention to
repossess the property; and Provided, finally, That the owner/lessor or
immediate member stays in the residential unit for at least one year, except
for justifiable cause. (Emphasis
supplied)
Following the ruling in Tan Tok Lee vs. CFI of Kalookan City, 121
SCRA 438 (1983), with almost identical facts, we hold that a bona fide
buyer of leased property, like the herein petitioner, who proves that he needs
the leased property for his own use or for that of his family, may avail of the
right of ejectment.
In that case, the leased premises were bought by the new owner
for her and her family’s use since they were also being ejected from the house
they were then occupying. The new owner
informed the lessees that she needed the premises badly and wanted to transfer her
residence thereat. Despite repeated demands,
however, the lessees refused to vacate. A complaint for ejectment was filed by the new owner before the City
Court of Kalookan, which rendered judgment ordering the lessees to vacate. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of
Kalookan affirmed the City Court judgment holding that the lessees were not
covered by the protective mantle of PD No. 20.
The lessees elevated the case to this Court on a Petition for
Review and presented two issues for resolution:
“1. Whether or not under PD No. 20 and other
existing laws, the private respondent can eject petitioners from the premises
in question on the ground that she is the new owner of the leased premises,
with no lease contract with petitioners.
“2. Whether or not this case is covered by PD No.
20.”
We sustained the right of the new owner to recover possession and
use of her property and held that ejectment was proper.
“Petitioners relied heavily on the provisions of PD No. 20 and
its implementing orders, memoranda and letters of instructions, suspending the
provisions of Art. 1673 (1) of the Civil Code for judicial ejectment of
lessees.
PD No. 20 was promulgated precisely for the purpose of alleviating
the living conditions of the poor people who have no homes of their own but ‘it
was not so designed to be so stringent and inflexible as to totally deprive
an owner of his right to take possession and dispose of his property in case of
extreme necessity.’
The new owner, respondent Dulay has established her right to
possess the property during the hearing in the court below. She bought the premises in question for her
and her family’s own use since they were also being ejected from the house they
are presently occupying.
Witnesses also testified that petitioners promised to look for
another place and to vacate the premises, which testimony remains
undisputed. With the refusal of
petitioners to move out of the premises, respondent is greatly prejudiced for
she has no other place to live in, for at any time now she and her family could
also be evicted.
Petitioners’ reliance on the provisions of PD No. 20 is not
well-taken. It could not have been the
intention of said decree to deprive the owner of the rightful use of her home,
more so, when petitioners reneged on their promise to look for another house
in the mistaken belief that PD No. 20 gave her a preferred right over that of
the owner. To deny the owner of the use
and possession of her property would tantamount to depriving her of her
constitutional right to abode.
Moreover, the rigid suspension of the Civil Code on judicial
ejectment has been relaxed with the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 which
allows as one of the grounds for judicial ejectment the need of the
owner/lessor to repossess his property for his own use or for the use of
immediate members of his family as a residential unit.
Thus, Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 upholds the right of respondent to
recover possession and use of her property which was unjustifiably occupied by
petitioners.”
In the case at bar, petitioner has likewise established that he
bought the premises in question for his and his family’s own use since they
were also being ejected from the house they were leasing. This was corroborated by Emilio Fonacier,
petitioner’s landlord who testified that he was ejecting petitioner because he
himself needed the premises. Private
respondent-lessee had also agreed to vacate the leased property but reneged on
his promise thereby depriving petitioner of the use of his own home. As in the Tan Tok Lee
case, therefore, we uphold petitioner’s right to recover possession of the
leased premises. Contrary to the
opinion of the Appellate Court, a new owner is embraced within the broad term
owner/lessor in BP Blg. 25.
The law could not have intended to prevent bona fide
sales from owner/lessors, who wish to dispose of their property, to third
persons in need of their own residence. This would be an unreasonable construction contrary to the fundamental
philosophy underlying the right to property. And to give a preferential right to a tenant over and above a new
owner’s need of the premises for his use and that of his family is, as stated
in the Tan Tok Lee case, to impair the new
owner’s liberty of abode (Sec. 5, Article
IV, 1973 Constitution).
Having arrived at the above conclusion, the other issue raised by
the parties becomes inconsequential.
WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and the Decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch
XV, at Makati, is reinstated. This
Decision is immediately executory.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.