DIGEST/ ANDRINO/ FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ARTURO LOO PO, Respondent. G.R. No. 217694/ 2016

 FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ARTURO LOO PO

Facts:

In a complaint for unlawful detainer, docketed as Civil Case No. 19429, filed before the MeTC, Fairland alleged that it was the owner of Condominium Unit No. 205 in Cedar Mansion II on Ma. Escriba Street, Pasig City. The said unit was leased by Fairland to Po by verbal agreement, with a rental fee of P20,000.00 a month, to be paid by Po at the beginning of each month. From March 2011, Po had continuously failed to pay rent. For said reason, Fairland opted not to renew the lease agreement anymore.

 Fairland sent a formal letter to Po demanding that he pay the amount of P220,000.00, representing the rental arrears, and that he vacate the leased premises within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the letter. Despite receipt of the demand letter and the lapse of the said 15-day period to comply, Po neither tendered payment for the unpaid rent nor vacated the premises. Thus, on December 12, 2012, Fairland was constrained to file the complaint for unlawful detainer before the MeTC. Po had until January 7, 2013 to file his answer but he failed to do so. Hence, on February 6, 2013, Fairland filed a motion to render judgment. In its February 21, 2013 Order, the MeTC considered the case submitted for decision. In its March 21, 2013 Decision, the MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit due to Fairland’s failure to prove its claim by preponderance of evidence. Hence, this petition.

 

Issue:

Whether or not in an ejectment case wherein no answer was seasonably filed, it is an error of law to base judgment on the preponderance of evidence.

Ruling:

The complaint has a valid cause of action for Unlawful Detainer

Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court lays down the requirements for filing a complaint for unlawful detainer, to wit:

Section 1. – Who may institute proceedings, and when. – Subject to the provision of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.

Stated differently, unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of possession of real property. This action may be filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person from whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant was originally legal, as his possession was permitted by the plaintiff on account of an express or implied contract between them. The defendant’s possession, however, became illegal when the plaintiff demanded that the defendant vacate the subject property due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess under the contract, and the defendant refused to heed such demand. A case for unlawful detainer must be instituted one year from the unlawful withholding of possession.

A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1) initially, possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property, and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one (1) year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

There is no question that the complaint filed by Fairland adequately alleged a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The pertinent portion of the said complaint reads:

x x x

3. Plaintiff is the owner of, and had been leasing to the defendant, the premises mentioned above as the residence of the latter;

4. There is no current written lease contract between plaintiff and the defendant, but the latter agreed to pay the former the amount of Php20,000.00 as rent at the beginning of each month. Thus, the term of the lease agreement is renewable on a month-to-month basis;

5. Since March 2011, defendant has not been paying the aforesaid rent despite plaintiff’s repeated demands;

6. Due to defendant’s continuous failure to pay rent, plaintiff reached a decision not to renew the lease agreement. It sent a formal letter, x x x demanding defendant to pay the amount of Php220,000.00, representing defendant’s twelve month rental arrears beginning January 2011, and to vacate the leased premises, both within fifteen (15) days from receipt of said letter;

7. Despite receipt of the aforesaid demand letter and lapse of the fifteen day period given to comply with plaintiff’s demand, defendant neither tendered payment for the unpaid rent nor vacated the leased premises. Worse, defendant has not been paying rent up to now;

x x x

The above-cited portions of the complaint sufficiently alleged that Fairland was the owner of the subject property being leased to Po by virtue of an oral agreement. There was a demand by Fairland for Po to pay rent and vacate before the complaint for unlawful detainer was instituted. The complaint was seasonably filed within the one-year period prescribed by law. With all the elements present, there was clearly a cause of action in the complaint for unlawful detainer.

Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the weight of evidence is not considered when a judgment is rendered based on the complaint

The question now is whether the MeTC correctly dismissed the case for lack of preponderance of evidence. Fairland posits that judgment should have been rendered in its favor on the basis of the complaint itself and not on its failure to adduce proof of ownership over the subject property.

The Court agrees with Fairland’s position.

The summons, together with the complaint and its annexes, was served upon Po on December 28, 2012. This presupposes that the MeTC found no ground to dismiss the action for unlawful detainer. Nevertheless, Po failed to file his answer on time and the MeTC had the option to render judgment motu proprio or on the motion of the plaintiff. In relation thereto, Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules on Summary Procedure provide:

Sec. 5. Answer. – Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff. Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein shall be deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in the answer shall be considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served within ten (10) days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded.

Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. – Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio or on the motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein. The court may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorney’s fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable, without prejudice to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, if there are two or more defendants.

Section 6 is clear that in case the defendant failed to file his answer, the court shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon the plaintiff’s motion, based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for. The failure of the defendant to timely file his answer and to controvert the claim against him constitutes his acquiescence to every allegation stated in the complaint. Logically, there is nothing to be done in this situation except to render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint.

Similarly, under Section 7, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which governs the rules for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, if the defendant fails to answer the complaint within the period provided, the court has no authority to declare the defendant in default. Instead, the court, motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for.