Viray vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 81015. July 4, 1991
NARVASA, J.:
Facts:
Rustico Victor and his wife left for Canada and did not return to the Philippines until
February 1985 and left the apartment in the care of their son Ramon. In believing that spouses
Victor had abandoned the apartment, petitioner Benjamin De Asis brought a suit to evict Ramon,
believing that he was an unauthorized stranger. When the spouses returned, and with
representation that they did not intend to give up the apartment, the case was dismissed.
However, Victor did not re-occupy the apartment but continued to leave it in the care of Ramon.
Later, Ramon left for Canada and asked his brother, Roldan, to look after the place but did not
occupy the apartment and just install a padlock at the main door, visited the place once a week
and sleep occasionally. De Asis, upon learning the situation, cut off the electricity and water
service and posted a notice of termination on ground of abandonment and failure to pay rentals.
When he returned a week after, the notice was gone and posted another notice with intention to
repossess it after 5 days. Later, an action for forcible entry was filed by Roldan against De Asis
and his new lessee, petitioner Cresencio Viray which the MTC ruled in his favor. Upon appeal,
RTC affirmed and denied the motion for reconsideration. Thus, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the posting in the premises, in the first week of December, 1985, of notice of
termination of the lease had legally caused its cessation or extinguishment as of December 31,
1985?
Rule of law:
Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court
Application:
It appears undisputed, too, that the lessor had posted a notice of termination of the lease
of the doorway of the leased apartment and that the notice had subsequently been noted and
removed by the lessee’s representative. The giving of notice of termination in this manner is
explicitly authorized by Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides that
a demand by a landlord for payment of rent or comply with the conditions of the lease and to
vacate the premises may inter alia be made “by posting such notice on the premises if no persons
be found thereon.”
Conclusion:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE,
and another rendered DISMISSING Civil Case No. 115635-CV of the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Manila (Branch 6).