TENGCO V CA

PADILLA; October 19, 1989

NATURE
Review on certiorari of the decision of CA.

FACTS
- Lutgarda Cifra, the owner of the premises at No. 164 Int., Gov. Pascual St.,
Navotas, Metro Manila leased the said property to Emilia Tengco. The contract was
not in writing, hence, not recorded.
- While the contract of lease was still subsisting, Lutgarda Cifra transferred the
ownership of the property to Benjamin Cifra.
- Tengco, despite her knowledge of this transfer, attempted to pay her rentals to the
person whom she used to pay her dues. But that person refused to accept the
payment as she is no longer had the authority to accept payments. Tengco, on the
other hand, did not give the payment to Benjamin Cifra or consigned the amount to
the court.
- The record of the case shows that on 16 September 1976, Benjamin Cifra, Jr. filed
an action for umlawful detainer with the MTC of Navotas to evict the peititioner,
Emilia Tengco, from the said premises for her alleged failure to comply with the
terms and conditions of the lease contract by failing and refusing to pay the
stipulated rentals despite repeated demands. After trial, judgment was rendered
against Tengco and ordered the defendant and any and all persons claiming rights
under her to vacate the premises occupied by her and to surrender possession
thereof to the plaintiff.

ISSUES
1. WON Benjamin Cifra, Jr. is the owner of the leased premises
2. WON the lessor was guilty of mora accipiendi
3. WON laches had deprived the lessor of the right to eject her considering that the
Complaint was filed only in September 1976 whereas his cause of action arose
sometime in February, 1974 when she defaulted in the payment of rentals

HELD

1. YES. The question of whether or not private respondent is the owner of the
leased premises is one of fact which is within the cognizance of the trial court
whose findings thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing
that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or
circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the
case.
2. NO. Under the circumstances, the refusal to accept that proffered rentals is not
without justification. The ownership of the property had been transferred by
Lutgarda Cifra, the original lessor, to Benjamin Cifra and the person to whom
payment was offered had no authority to accept payment. It should be noted that
the contract of lease between the petitoner and Lutgarda Cifra, the former owner of
the land, was not in writing and, hence, unrecorded. The Court has held that a
contract of lease executed by the vendor, unless recorded, ceases to have effect
when the property is sold, in the absence of a contrary agreement.
3. NO. The tenant's mere failure to pay rent does not ipso facto make unlawful his
possession of the leased premises. It is failure to pay rents after a demand
therefore is made that entitles the lessor to bring an action of Unlawful Detainer,
Moreover, the lessor has the privilege to waive his right to bring an action against
his tenant and give the latter credit for the payment of the rents and allow him to
continue indefinitely in the possession of the premises. During such period, the
tenant would not be in illegal possession of the premises and the landlord can not
maintain an action until after he has taken steps to convert the legal possession
into an illegal possession. Consequently, petitioner's non-payment of the rentals on
the premises, notwithstanding demand made by Cifra, and her failure to avail of the
remedy provided for in Article 1256 of the Civil Code, entitles private respondent to
eject her from the premises.

Disposition: The petition is denied.