1. FAIRLAND filed an
unlawful detainer case against ARTURO for the latter’s failure to pay rental
fee of P20,000 a month based on verbal agreement. Hence, FAIRLAND demanded
payment of P220,000 representing rental arrears. ARTURO, however, failed to
file his answer on time. And rather filed Entry of Appearance with Motion for
Leave of Court to file Comment/Opposition to Motion to Render Judgment. In the
attached Comment/Opposition, ARTURO denied the allegations against
him and commented that FAIRLAND failed to prove by preponderance of evidence
its allegations.
MeTC
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit due to Fairland’s failure to prove
its claim by preponderance of evidence.
Was
the decision of the trial court proper?
No.
Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the weight of
evidence is not considered when a judgment is rendered based on the complaint.
Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period allowed by
Rules, 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 Rule is clear, when ARTURO failed to
file his answer on time, the MeTC had the option to render judgment motu proprio
or on motion of the plaintiff, based solely on the facts alleged
in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for.
In this case, ARTURO 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. Thus, as no answer was
filed, judgment must be rendered by the court as may be warranted by the facts
alleged in the complaint.
2. The pertinent portion
of the complaint reads:
x
x x
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;
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 x
Decide
whether the complaint above adequately alleges a cause of action.
Yes, Complaint has a valid cause of action for
Unlawful Detainer
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.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment