ANNEX-BB_Inductivo-vs-Court-of-Appeals-G.R.-No.-108196-19-January-1994..doc - ANNEX BB INDUCTIVO vs COURT OF APPEALS G.R No 108196 THIRD DIVISION VITUG

ANNEX-BB_Inductivo-vs-Court-of-Appeals-G.R.-No.-108196-19-January-1994..doc

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

ANNEX BB INDUCTIVO vs. . COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 108196 January 19, 1994. THIRD DIVISION, VITUG,, J. FACTS: Petitioner Vicky Dimapilis is the lessee of apartment No. 104-D at Clara St., Grace Park, Kalookan City, which private respondent Maura Inductivo owns. The lease was originally covered by a contract which the parties executed on February 1, 1976, to be effective for one year but after its expiration on January 31, 1977, petitioner remained in the premises, paying private respondent a monthly rental of P850.00. In a letter dated December 20, 1989, private respondent, through her lawyer, informed petitioner of her desire to repossess the apartment occupied by petitioner and, for this reason, gave notice that she was terminating the lease effective December 31, 1989. At the same time she demanded that petitioner vacate and surrender the premises within five (5) days from notice. In her reply letter, petitioner denied the right of respondent to repossess the apartment, pointing out that she was a spinster and was living in her house and, therefore, could not possibly need the apartment for her use. She likewise said that the five-day period given to her was short. Petitioner, therefore, refused the respondent's demand. But so did respondent Maura Inductivo refuse to accept payment of rents from petitioner. On March 10, 1990, private respondent wrote to petitioner claiming that the latter had not paid the rents from January to March 1990 and demanding payment and the return of the premises. As petitioner refused to vacate the apartment, private respondent filed on June 28, 1990 a complaint for unlawful detainer with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City. In her complaint, private respondent alleged that petitioner had failed and refused to pay the monthly rent of P850.00 for the months of January to March 1990 in the total amount of P2,550.00 and that despite demands petitioner refused to pay and vacate the apartment. On the other hand petitioner denied that she had defaulted in the payment of the rents. She claimed that she had tendered payment of the rents but private respondent had refused the payment and for this reason she was forced to deposit the amount in the bank.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture