ANNEX-AA_Alfredo-Arquelada-vs.-Philippine-Veterans-Bank-G.R.-No.-139137-31-March-2000..doc - ANNEX AA ARQUELADA vs PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK G.R No

ANNEX-AA_Alfredo-Arquelada-vs.-Philippine-Veterans-Bank-G.R.-No.-139137-31-March-2000..doc

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 4 pages.

ANNEX AAARQUELADA vs. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANKG.R. No. 139137. March 31, 2000.FIRST DIVISION, KAPUNAN, J.FACTS:Arquelada, et al. (the "Petitioners") are the lessees of a fourteen-door apartment located at No.1708 M. Lazaro corner M. Hizon Streets, Sta. Cruz, Manila. Previously, the said apartments, originallycovered by TCT Nos. 44753 and 44754, were owned by the spouses Ernesto Singson and SocorroSingson.[2]The spousesSingson andthe petitioners entered into a verbal contract of lease wherein thelatter undertook to pay a monthly rent on the apartments. During the effectivity of the lease contract, thespouses Singson executed a real estate mortgage over the said apartments as security for the loan theyobtained from respondent Philippine Veterans Bank (the "Bank"). In view of the failure of the spousesSingson to pay their loan to the Bank, it instituted foreclosure proceedings on the real estate mortgage.Eventually, title to the properties owned by the spouses Singson, including the apartments, weretransferred to the name of the Bank under TCT Nos. 225493 and 225494.[3]Despite the change in ownership over the apartments, the Bank allowed the petitioners to continue stayingin the premises. Like the original arrangement with the spouses Singson, lease on a month-to-month basisat a stipulated rent was agreed uponOn 30 January 1998, the Bank sent to each petitioner a Statement ofAccount indicating their respective outstanding back rentals.[5]The Bank, likewise, made several demandsto petitioners, asking them to settle their debts.[6]For failure of petitioners to heed the final notice, the Bank filed on 12 February 1998 a complaint forUnlawful Detainer with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 15, Manila. The complaint for unlawfuldetainer was anchored on the ground of termination of the month-to-month lease because the Bankneeded the properties for its own use. In their answer, petitioners argued that the MTC did not acquirejurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case since the complaint was filed before the lapse of the five-dayperiod from the time of demand or notice to vacate as required in Section 2, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules ofCivil Procedure.After trial, the MTC rendered judgment in favor of the Bank in a Decision, dated 28 September 1998. TheMTC held that valid grounds for the ejectment of the petitioners existed, namely, the non-payment ofrentals for more than three (3) months and the expiration of the verbal contract of lease. The petitioners appealed the adverse decision of the MTC to the RTC. The RTC handed down a Decision,promulgated on 23 February 1999, affirming in totothe decision of the MTC.[9]Subsequently, petitionersfiled a motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision. The Bank, in turn, filed a motion for execution ofthe RTC decision. In an Order, issued on 7 April 1999, the RTC denied petitioners' motion forreconsideration and granted the Bank's motion for execution.
Background image
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture