Cursino vs. Bautista
Cursino vs. Bautista
FACTS:
Private respondent is the lawful owner and lessor of the subject property in Paranaque and was
leased by petitioner.
Petitioner defaulted in his payment and was demanded to vacate the premises to which he did
not heed. A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by respondent. The court rendered a
decision in favor of private respondent.
Petitioner appealed to Court of First Instance of Rizal. COFI affirmed the decision of municipal
court.
ISSUE:
WON respondent Maria James still ahs a cause of action against petitioner after she received
and and accepted rentals for the months of October to December 1977.
HELD:
Petitioner was able to pay the back rentals but refused to vacate the premises. Undoubtedly,
petitioner's belated payments of his back rentals do not automatically restore the contract
of lease without private respondent's consent. The terms of the contract of lease have been
violated and the lessor-owner has the unquestionable right to withdraw from said contract or
agreement whether oral or written.
It is the landlord's demand for tenant to vacate the premises, when the tenant has failed to
pay the rents on time and tenant's refusal or failure to vacate, which make unlawful
withholding of possession
That consent, no matter how long it may last makes lawful tenant's possession. Only when
that consent is withdrawn and the owner demands tenant to leave the property is the
owner's right of possession asserted and the tenant's refusal or failure to move out makes
his possession unlawful because it is violative of the owner's preferential right of
possession
In this case, respondent-lessor did not consent to petitioner's possession of the leased
premises after the latters default in the payment of the monthly rents. On the contrary,
respondent demanded that petitioner pay the back rental and vacate the premises. The
refusal of the petitioner to vacate the premises after demand, makes his withholding of
possession unlawful.