SIMEONA FLORES-REYES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. GUILLERMO ZAMORA AND CECILIA REYES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

A decision having been rendered by the City Court of Manila, in this
unlawful detainer case, in favor of plaintiff Simeona Flores-Reyes and against defendants Guillermo
Zamora and Cecilia Reyes, the latter appealed to the Court of First Instance of
Manila which, in due course, rendered judgment dismissing the case, without
costs.  Hence, this
appeal by plaintiff Simeona Flores-Reyes.

It is alleged in the complaint herein that the plaintiff is the
lessee of the land described therein; that plaintiff had subleased a portion of
said land to the defendants, on a month-to-month basis; and that despite
repeated demands made since October 1965, the defendants had refused and still
refuse to vacate the premises in question. 
Accordingly, plaintiff prayed that the defendants be sentenced to vacate
said premises, and to pay the plaintiff the sum of two hundred pesos (P200) as
attorney’s fees, apart from the costs. 
In their answer, the defendants admitted the formal allegations of the
complaint and denied all other allegations thereof, for lack of knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and averred, by way of
special defenses, that they had been “religiously paying their current
rental ever since they resided” in the premises in question; that they are
builders in good faith; and that not being the owner of the land
aforementioned, “plaintiff can not possibly file complaint against the
defendants.”

After finding for the plaintiff as regards the facts, the Court
of First Instance dismissed said complaint, upon the theory that plaintiff had
not complied with Section 2 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, reading:

“No landlord, or his legal representative or assign, shall
bring such action against a tenant for failure to pay rent due or to comply
with the conditions of his lease, unless the tenant shall have failed to pay such
rent or comply with such conditions for a period of fifteen (15) days, or five
(5) days in the case of building, after demand therefor,
made upon him personally, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the
person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no
persons be found thereon.”

in that
plaintiff’s letter of demand to the defendants had merely given them
five (5) days, instead of the fifteen (15) days prescribed in said section,
within which to vacate the land involved in the dispute.  The aforementioned period refers, however, to
the time that should transpire from the demand to the date of filing
of the action, not to the period to be given in the letter of
demand.  In the very case of Gallarde v. Moran,^[1]
cited in the decision appealed from, it was said that the aforementioned
provision requires “that the demand be made at least fifteen days x x x before bringing the
action.” In the case at bar, plaintiff’s letter of demand, Exhibit B,
dated January 24, 1966, was received by the defendants on February 3, 1966 –
according to the registry return card Exhibit B-2 – whereas the complaint was
filed on February 28, 1966, or twenty-five (25) days after receipt of
said letter of demand.  Hence, the Court
of First Instance erred in holding that section 2 of Rule 70 had not been
complied with and in dismissing the complaint herein.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
hereby reversed, and another one entered sentencing the defendants to vacate
the premises in question and to pay to the plain­tiff the sum of two hundred
pesos (P200), as attorney’s fees, in addition to the costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

^[1] L-19572,
July 30, 1965.