ANNEX BBINDUCTIVO vs. . COURT OF APPEALSG.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 acontract which the parties executed on February 1, 1976, to be effective for one year but after itsexpiration on January 31, 1977, petitioner remained in the premises, paying private respondent a monthlyrental of P850.00.In a letter dated December 20, 1989, private respondent, through her lawyer, informed petitioner of herdesire to repossess the apartment occupied by petitioner and, for this reason, gave notice that she wasterminating the lease effective December 31, 1989. At the same time she demanded that petitioner vacateand 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 thatshe was a spinster and was living in her house and, therefore, could not possibly need the apartment forher use. She likewise said that the five-day period given to her was short. Petitioner, therefore, refused therespondent's demand. But so did respondent Maura Inductivo refuse to accept payment of rents frompetitioner.On March 10, 1990, private respondent wrote to petitioner claiming that the latter had not paid the rentsfrom January to March 1990 and demanding payment and the return of the premises. As petitioner refusedto vacate the apartment, private respondent filed on June 28, 1990 a complaint for unlawful detainer withthe Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City.In her complaint, private respondent alleged that petitioner had failed and refused to pay the monthly rentof P850.00 for the months of January to March 1990 in the total amount of P2,550.00 and that despitedemands 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 thatshe had tendered payment of the rents but private respondent had refused the payment and for this reasonshe was forced to deposit the amount in the bank.