January 27, 2016 G.R. No. 217694 Fairland Knitcraft Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Arturo Loo PO, Respondent

January 27, 2016 G.R. No.
217694
FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ARTURO LOO

PO, Respondent.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In a complaint6 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.
On January 30, 2012, Fairland sent a formal letter7 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.8
In its February 21, 2013 Order,9 the MeTC considered the case submitted
for decision.
On March 1, 2013, Po’s counsel filed his Entry of Appearance with Motion
for Leave of Court to file Comment/Opposition to Motion to Render
Judgment.10 In the attached Comment/Opposition, Po denied the
allegations against him and commented that there was no supporting
document that would show that Fairland owned the property; that there
was no lease contract between them; that there were no documents
attached to the complaint which would show that previous demands had
been made and received by him; that the alleged unpaid rental was
P220,000.00, but the amount of damages being prayed for was
P440,000.00; that the issue in the case was one of ownership; and that it
was the RTC which had jurisdiction over the case.
The MeTC treated the comment/opposition as Po’s answer to the

complaint. Considering, however, that the case fell under the Rules of
Summary Procedure, the same was deemed filed out of time.
RULING:
Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court lays down the requirements for
filing a complaint for unlawful detainer, to wit:
1
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.22
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.23
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:
xxx
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;
2
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 x24
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.25 Nevertheless, Po
failed to file his answer on time and the MeTC had the option to render
judgment motu proprio or on 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.
3
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 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.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Section 6 is clear that in case the defendant failed to file his answer, the
court shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon 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 situation26except to render judgment as may be warranted by
the facts alleged in the complaint.27
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.28
This has been enunciated in the case of Don Tino Realty and
Development Corporation v. Florentino,29 citing Bayog v. Natino,30 where
the Court held that there was no provision for an entry of default under
the Rules of Summary Procedure if the defendant failed to file his answer.
In this case, Po failed to file his answer to the complaint despite proper
service of summons. He also failed to provide a sufficient justification to
excuse his lapses.1âwphi1 Thus, as no answer was filed, judgment must be
rendered by the court as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the
complaint.
===========================
Comment:
Atty, according to the rules, file lang daw tag Motion to Render Judgment.
But I asked Atty. Degollacion who handles ejectment cases, he told me
na we have to submit Motion to Submit Position Paper para mao nay basis
sa judgment and para ma guide ang Court.
We can file the Motion to Submit Position Paper and Motion to Render
Judgment together.
4
5

January 27, 2016 G.R. No. 217694 Fairland Knitcraft Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Arturo Loo PO, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

January 27, 2016 G.R. No. 217694 Fairland Knitcraft Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Arturo Loo PO, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

January 27, 2016 G.R. No. 217694 Fairland Knitcraft Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Arturo Loo PO, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

January 27, 2016 G.R. No.

FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ARTURO LOO

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In a complaint6 for unlawful detainer, docketed as Civil Case No. 19429,

On January 30, 2012, Fairland sent a formal letter7 to Po demanding that

The MeTC treated the comment/opposition as Po’s answer to the

Stated differently, unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery

A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it

There is no question that the complaint filed by Fairland adequately

4. There is no current written lease contract between plaintiff and

6. Due to defendant’s continuous failure to pay rent, plaintiff

7. Despite receipt of the aforesaid demand letter and lapse of the

The above-cited portions of the complaint sufficiently alleged that

Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the weight of evidence is not

The Court agrees with Fairland’s position.

You might also like