Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

ARTURO P. SANTOS and ADELINA Y.

SANTOS, Petitioners, rented an apartment owned by


AURORA GUTIERREZ, Respondents with rental rate of P250.00 a month on a month-to-month
contract of lease.
Facts:
Aurora Gutierrez instituted an unlawful detainer case in the then City Court of Manila against
herein petitioners Arturo P. Santos and Adelina Y. Santos on grounds that she needs the premises
for her personal use and the necessity of repairs thereon, and that the petitioners were delinquent
in the payment of rentals.
After trial, the City Court rendered judgment
Court hereby renders judgment for the respondent and against the petitioner and orders the
petitioners and all persons claiming under them to vacate the premises.
Petitioners appealed the foregoing judgment to the then Court of First Instance which found the
same
Issue:
which includes, this petition for review on certiorari of the Santoses that:
1. they were never delinquent in the payment of rentals only the collector failed to get the money
and since the whereabouts of private respondent was unknown, they were forced to deposit them
to the bank;
2. the mere sending of a notice to vacate by registered mail which the postal clerk refused to
deliver to them for the reason of wrong name cannot be considered sufficient compliance with
the jurisdictional requirement of notice.
3. They have been leasing the apartment for 28 years and are therefore entitled to preferential
right to purchase their unit under Presidential Decree No. 1517;
4. There is no real need of the premises by private respondent;
5. it was an error to order their ejectment without complying with the mandatory requirements of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 and the ruling in Rantael v. Llave, 97 SCRA 453;
6. respondent court erred in stating that a contract of lease of residential apartment involving a
rental of P250.00 a month may be terminated at the end of the month without default on the part
of the lessee.
7. there was improper change of theory on appeal on the part of private respondent; and,
8. there was error in affirming the decision of the lower court.
Held:
The Court found no merit in the petition.
Petitioners are "the legitimate tenants and/or lessees of the subject apartment with the present
rental rate of P250.00 a month on a month-to-month contract of lease."
The aforequoted provision of the agreement on occupancy of the apartment cannot but mean as
providing for a definite period of the lease. The parties expressly agreed that upon proper notice,
one may terminate the agreement. As stated in Rantael v. Court of Appeals, 97 SCRA 453, 459

". . . The contractual relations between petitioner Rantael and respondent Llave ceased after the
expiration of the first thirty days reckoned from August 1, 1974 but continued for the next thirtyday period and expired after the last day thereof, repeating the same cycle for the succeeding
thirty-day periods, until the said respondent Llave exercised her express prerogative under the
agreement to terminate the same."
The Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals words that, "even on the strength alone of the
Rantael ruling, the petitioners can be lawfully ejected, regardless of the motive or intent of the
lessor-private Respondent.
Thus the court see no point in discussing the other issues raised except to state that P.D. No.
1517. In referring to the pre-emptive or redemptive right of a lease speaks only of urban land
under lease on which a tenant has built his home and in which he has resided for ten years or
more. If both land and the building belong to the lessor, the right referred to hereinabove does
not apply."
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant petition for review and
AFFIRMING the decision of respondent Court of Appeals. With costs.
____________________________________________
MANUEL M. SERRANO, petitioner,
vs.
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA; and
Stakeholders: EMERITO M. RAMOS, SUSANA B. RAMOS, EMERITO B. RAMOS, JR.,
JOSEFA RAMOS DELA RAMA, HORACIO DELA RAMA, ANTONIO B. RAMOS,
FILOMENA RAMOS LEDESMA, RODOLFO LEDESMA, VICTORIA RAMOS
TANJUATCO, and TEOFILO TANJUATCO, respondents.
FACTS:
On October 13, 1966 and December 12, 1966, petitioner made a time deposit, for one year with
6% interest, of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) with the respondent Overseas
Bank of Manila.
Concepcion Maneja also made a time deposit, for one year with 6% interest, on March 6, 1967,
of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with the same respondent.
On August 31, 1968, Concepcion Maneja, married to Felixberto M. Serrano, assigned and
conveyed to petitioner Manuel M. Serrano, her time deposit of P200,000.00.
December 6, 1967 up to March 4, 1968 Petitioner demand from the bank the encashment of the
deposits.
The cause of the Petitioners action is because of the final judgment in G.R. No. L-29362,
entitled "Emerita M. Ramos, et al. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines," Where the Supreme
Court held:

Petitioners (Emerita M. Ramos, et al as stake holders of Overseas Bank of Manila) petition are
hereby granted and respondent Central Bank's resolution Nos. 1263, 1290 and 1333 (that prohibit
the Overseas Bank of Manila to participate in clearing, direct the suspension of its operation, and
ordering the liquidation of said bank) are hereby annulled and set aside; and said respondent
Central Bank of the Philippines is directed to comply with its obligations under the Voting Trust
Agreement, and to desist from taking action in violation therefor.
In other words, Central Bank was prevented from closing, declaring the former insolvent, and
liquidating its assets. The action of Central Bank was based on the information of Overseas Bank
of Manila that there are chronic reserve deficiencies against its deposit liabilities.
ISSUE:
Can the Petitioner recover for the time deposit on Overseas Bank of Manila from Central Bank
under The General Banking Law of 2000 (RA 8791)?
Held:
Petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against petitioner.
Central Bank is NOT OBLIDGED to pay the deposit of a depositor made in an insolvent bank.
In relation to our topic, Art. 1158 Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those
expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be regulated by
the precepts of the law which establishes them.
The General Banking Law of 2000 (RA 8791), was created to give Authority the Bangko Sentral
for the Organization, Management and Administration of Banks, Quasi-Banks and Trust Entities
but it should not be presumed that Central Bank should be responsible for all the acts or
insolvency of the banks because it was not express on the law which establishes it.
With regard to the recovery of the deposits:
It is the PDIC (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation pays up to P100,000.00 per depositor,
but now P500,000.00)