G.R. No. 205539 – 819 Phil. 379 – Remedial Law – Rule on Summary Procedure – Ejectment; Unlawful Detainer – Month-to-Month Rental Agreement – Demand Letter
Spouses Maximo and Susan Christensen had been renting, on a month to month basis, a parcel of lot in San Juan City since 1969. They do not have any written lease agreement. Later, the subject lot was inherited by Velia Cruz. She allowed the monthly rental to continue but later on she demanded the spouses to vacate the property because the spouses failed to pay rent. The matter was brought to the barangay and Velia was issued a certificate to file action in August 2005.
In August 2008, Velia sent the spouses a demand letter with notice to vacate. The letter was sent via postal service.
In April 2009, Velia filed an unlawful detainer case against the spouses.
In their defense, the spouses aver that it was Velia who refused to receive rent payment and that they did not receive any demand letter. The signature on the registry return card was allegedly not their signature.
ISSUE: Whether or not a demand letter is necessary for the unlawful detainer case to prosper.
HELD: No.
The prior service and receipt of a demand letter is unnecessary in a case for unlawful detainer if the demand to vacate is premised on the expiration of the lease, not on the non-payment of rentals or non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.
In this case, it would appear that in 2002, Velia indeed refused to accept the rent payment of the spouses. Since their lease agreement was on a month to month basis, such refusal by Velia terminated the lease agreement as early as 2002.
Therefore, the spouses’ insistence on the non-receipt of the demand letter is misplaced. Their verbal lease over the property had already expired sometime in 2002. They were explicitly told to vacate in 2005. They continued to occupy the property until Velia sent her final demand letter in 2008. The demand letter would have been unnecessary since the spouses’ continued refusal to vacate despite the expiration of their verbal lease was sufficient ground to bring the action.
DIGESTER’S QUERY: The lease expired in 2002. The unnecessary demand letter was sent in August 2008, and the unlawful detainer case was filed in April 2009. Why was this case allowed as an unlawful detainer case? Should this not be an accion publiciana case considering that the acts constituting unlawful detainer commenced in 2002 or more than one year already in 2009 when the case was filed?
