Unfair play

Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify it (Section 2[a] Rule 131, Rules of Court). This is the rule used in this case of Manny.

The case started from an ejectment case filed by MSI against Manny’s father Bien and all those claiming rights under him. Later Manny was also included in the suit when Bien died. MSI alleged: that it is the administrator of a parcel of land leased to Bien by virtue of a contract which expired on December 31, 1988; that even after the expiration of the lease contract, Bien, and after his demise, his son, Manny, continued occupying the premises without paying rentals; that on July 16, 1996, MSI wrote a demand letter asking Bien and all persons claiming rights under him to pay the rentals in arrears totaling P44,011.25 and to vacate the premises within 15 days from receipt; that despite receipt of the letter and after the expiration of the 15-day period they refused to vacate the property and to pay the rentals. So MSI also prayed that, that aside from vacating the premises and paying the rental in arrears, they should also pay P875.75 a month starting August 1, 1996 subject to increase allowed by law, until they finally vacate the premises.

Manny filed the answer as his father Bien died already. He admitted that MSI was the lessor of the property but denied knowledge about the lease contract allegedly executed by MSI and his father, and the unpaid rentals. As special and affirmative defense, Manny said that the demand made by MSI did not bind him because it was addressed to his father and the amount of rental has been unconscionably increased to compel him to leave the premises, that the lease contract was obnoxious to existing social legislation; and that he and his predecessor in interest have been in continuous possession of the property for more than 12 years and therefore may no longer be ejected from it because he is protected by said laws as bona fide tenant-occupant. Manny also questioned the validity of MSI’s title for being allegedly spurious.

The MeTC ruled in favor of MSI. It held that Manny, as successor of his father merely stepped into the shoes of the latter as lessee. On appeal the RTC reversed the MeTC. It held that MSI failed to show that it had superior and better right to possess the property than Manny. But on further appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter reversed the RTC and reinstated the decision of the MeTC. Manny thus questioned the decision of the CA. He questioned among others the CA’s ruling giving efficacy to the Lease Contract which was signed on February 5, 1988 when his father the alleged signatory was already dead since 1986. Apparently, the record shows that the contract was signed by a representative of his late father Bien but he did not inform MSI that Bien had already died. Was Manny correct?

No. The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is the physical or material possession of the property involved independent of any claim of ownership by the parties involved. In this case Manny lost his right to possess the property upon demand by MSI to vacate the rented lot. Manny cannot now refute the existence of the lease contract because of his prior admissions in his pleadings that MSI is the lessor while he is merely the tenant-occupant of the property. He cannot now question the validity of the lease contract as the representative of his father signed the same but did not inform MSI that Bien had already died. By not notifying that Bien had already died thus leading MSI to believe a particular thing true and to act on such belief, Manny cannot now be permitted to claim that the contract is falsified. He admitted that there was indeed a lease contract between his father and MSI and while he claimed that said contract has been repudiated, the ground for such repudiation was the question of ownership of the property, but not the capacity of the contracting parties. Apparently, Manny has been enjoying the property in question by virtue of the lease contract entered into by his father with MSI. It would run counter to the rules of fair play to now allow him to deny the efficacy of said contract (Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals et. al. G.R. 160014, February 18, 2005).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]