AGAPITO MANUEL, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAMON MAKASIAR and SPOUSES JESUS DE JESUS and CARMEN DE JESUS, respondents. G.R. No. 95469, Ju! "5, #99# REGALADO, J.: FACTS$
This This case case had had its ince incept ptio ion n in a compla complaint int for ejectm ejectment ent filed filed by herein herein private respondents against herein petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Cour Courtt of Mani Manila la,, for for nonnon-pa paym ymen entt of rent rental alss on an apar apartm tment ent unit unit owne owned d by private respondents and rented by petitioner. petitioner. The pri privat vate respon pondents nts are the owners of an apartment unit which was rent rented ed by the the peti petiti tione onerr on a mont month h to mont onth basi basiss for for a mont monthl hly y rent ental of P4 P4.! .!! ! paya payabl blee in adva advanc nce" e" that that the the petitioner failed to pay the corresponding rentals for the month of May #$%& up to the filing of the complaint on 'ugust (#, #$%& #$%&"" that hat on )uly uly $, #$%& #$%&,, pri private vate respondents, through their counsel, sent a demand letter to the petitioner re*uiring him to pay his rentals in arrears and to vacate the leased premises within five + days days from from rece receip iptt ther thereo eof, f, othe otherw rwis isee private respondents will be constrained to file file the appropr appropriat iatee legal legal action action against against him" him" that that the the demand demand lett letter er of priv privat atee respondents counsel was received by the petitioner on )uly #4, #$%&" that in response thereto, the petitioner addressed a lett letter er date dated d )uly )uly #, #$%& #$%& to priv privat atee respondent respondent Carmen de )esus, )esus, furnishing furnishing a copy thereof to her counsel, stating that the amount of rentals, which the private
respondents allegedly refused to receive, had had been been depo deposi site ted d at /nit /nited ed Coco Coconu nutt Planters 0an1, Taft 'venue 0ranch, with 'cco 'ccoun untt 2o. 2o. %%$( %%$( in the the name name of the the petitioners son, Mario Manuel, and could be withdrawn upon notice of payment" that that in orde orderr to coll collec ectt the the said said rent rental alss alle allege gedl dly y depo deposi site ted d with with the the ban1, ban1, the the private respondents counsel sent a letter dated 'ugust #4, #$%& to the petitioner, re*ue re*uest stin ing g the the payme payment nt of the the unpai unpaid d rent entals als to his his +pri privat vate resp respon onde dent nts s counse counsel l offic office" e" that that the said said letter letter was received by the petitioner on 'ugust #%, #$%&, #$%&, and, and, inst instea ead d of comp comply lyin ing g with with private respondents counsels re*uest, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 'ugust 34, 34, #$%& #$%& to the the priv privat atee resp respon onde dent nts s couns counsel el re*ue re*uest stin ing g that that the the rent rental alss in arrears be paid to the private respondents at petitioner oners hous ouse. The private respondents did not heed the petitioners re*uest. MTC render its decision in favor of the private respondents. n appeal, both the 5TC and the C' affirmed the decision in toto, hence, this petition.
ISSUE$
62, private respondents 7pouse 8e )esus )esus under the circumstan circumstances ces prevailing prevailing in this instant case, were really in mora accipiendi that even if no dep deposit or consignation had been made. HELD$
2o, the contention of petitioner that private respondents are in mora accipiendi canno cannott be uphel upheld d eith either er.. The The failure of the owners to collect or their refusal to accept the rentals are not valid
# 9 Page
defenses. Consignation, under such circumstances, is necessary, and by this we mean one that is effected in full compliance with the specific re*uirements of the law therefor.
of action in favor of the private respondent lessors against the petitioner lessee.
7ection +b of 0atas Pambansa 0lg. 3, as amended, provides that in case of refusal by the lessor to accept payment of the rental agreed upon, the lessee shall either deposit, by way of consignation, the amount in court or in a ban1 in the name of and with notice to the lessor. The failure of herein petitioner to comply with said re*uirement ma1es the consignation defective and gives rise to a cause of action for ejectment. Compliance with the re*uisites of a valid consignation is mandatory. :t must be complied with frilly and strictly in accordance with the law. 7ubstantial compliance is not enough. ;rom the earlier discussion, petitioner evidently did not comply with the re*uirements for consignation prescribed by the governing law. Conse*uently, as e
3 9 Page