Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    Consumido V Ros

    Uploaded by

    Elaizza Concepcion
    This case involves an unlawful detainer complaint filed by Spouses Saura against Digna Consumido involving two leased units. The MeTC dismissed the case, finding that VGFC, not the Spouses, were the real lessors based on the lease agreements. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the Spouses failed to present evidence showing they were authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the real party in interest, which was now the property owner Sandalwood Real Estate Corp, as VGFC had sold the property. While the Spouses accepted rent payments, this did not make them the landlords with the right to file an ejectment suit in their personal capacities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Consumido V Ros

    Uploaded by

    Elaizza Concepcion
    61 views1 page
    This case involves an unlawful detainer complaint filed by Spouses Saura against Digna Consumido involving two leased units. The MeTC dismissed the case, finding that VGFC, not the Spouses, were the real lessors based on the lease agreements. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the Spouses failed to present evidence showing they were authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the real party in interest, which was now the property owner Sandalwood Real Estate Corp, as VGFC had sold the property. While the Spouses accepted rent payments, this did not make them the landlords with the right to file an ejectment suit in their personal capacities.

    Original Title

    Consumido v Ros

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves an unlawful detainer complaint filed by Spouses Saura against Digna Consumido involving two leased units. The MeTC dismissed the case, finding that VGFC, not the Spouses, were the real lessors based on the lease agreements. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the Spouses failed to present evidence showing they were authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the real party in interest, which was now the property owner Sandalwood Real Estate Corp, as VGFC had sold the property. While the Spouses accepted rent payments, this did not make them the landlords with the right to file an ejectment suit in their personal capacities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    61 views1 page

    Consumido V Ros

    Uploaded by

    Elaizza Concepcion
    This case involves an unlawful detainer complaint filed by Spouses Saura against Digna Consumido involving two leased units. The MeTC dismissed the case, finding that VGFC, not the Spouses, were the real lessors based on the lease agreements. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the Spouses failed to present evidence showing they were authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the real party in interest, which was now the property owner Sandalwood Real Estate Corp, as VGFC had sold the property. While the Spouses accepted rent payments, this did not make them the landlords with the right to file an ejectment suit in their personal capacities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    CONSUMIDO v ROS

    GR NO. 166875, July 31, 2007

    FACTS: Spouses Saura filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Digna Consumido. In their
    complaint, they alleged that, That sometime in 1995, they entered into two lease contracts with
    Digna Consumido, wherein they leased to Digna 2 units (Unit 982 and Unit 980); that Digna
    undertook to pay rentals per month (PhP 6,400 and PhP 6,000, respectively); and that Digna started
    defaulting on the rental payments (last quarter of 1995, and August 1997), and despite repeated
    demands, Digna failed to pay the accrued rentals and to vacate the premises.

    To this, Digna Consumido answered: That she entered in the said lease contracts not with the
    Spouses Saura but with the late Ramon Saura, Sr., the father of Ramon Saura, Jr. (husband); that
    Ramon Sr. organized Villa Governor Forbes Corporation (VGFC), the administrator of the leased
    premises.; and that until June 1999, she religiously paid the rentals to the Spouses Saura, who
    (merely) had assumed the administration of the leased premises after the death of Ramon, Sr., not
    knowing that as early as April 18, 1995, Sandalwood Real Estate Development (SRED) had already
    bought the leased premises from VGFC. 

    The MeTC rendered a decision DISMISSING the ejectment suit, ruling that VGFC was the lessor and
    Spouses Saura merely acted as administrators and/or representatives of VGFC upon the execution of
    the leased agreements; that the Spouses Saura are not the real parties-in-interest.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Spouses Saura are real parties-in-interest and are consequently entitled to
    file the complaint for unlawful detainer

    HELD: One who has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-
    plaintiff in action for it is jurisprudentially ordained that every action must be prosecuted or defended
    in the name of the real party in interest. A real party in interest is one who has a legal right. Since a
    contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other, in an action upon that
    contract, the real parties-in-interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to the said
    contract.

    In an action for unlawful detainer, the real parties-in-interest are the landlord, the vendor, the vendee,
    and any other person against whom the lawful possession of the land is unlawfully withheld after the
    expiration of the right to hold possession by virtue of a contract. This case is for unlawful detainer.
    There was however no written lease agreement thus there is no need for the court to determine who
    are the parties to the contract. And as was rightly found by the trial court, it was Forbes Corp which
    was the lessor or the landlord being the registered owner.

    The records show that Digna Consumido did not enter into the lease agreement with Spouses Saura.
    Other than their bare allegations, the Spouses failed to present sufficient evidence showing that they
    are the landlords of the leased premises or its successors-in-interest or are authorized to institute the
    ejectment suit in the name of the real party in interest. That Spouses Saura were parties to the lease
    agreement is not supported by the evidence on record. The Spouses were able to establish only as
    far as accepting the rental payments from Digna. However, this fact alone cannot vest in them the
    right of a landlord but of a mere administrator or representative of the late Ramon Saura, Sr. and/or
    VGFC.

    Thus, as pointed out by the MeTC, Spouses Saura cannot institute the ejectment suit in their personal
    capacities. They must present their authority to prosecute the ejectment suit in the name of the real
    party in interest, which is now Sandalwood Real Estate Corp, being the present owner. This the
    Spouses failed to do.

    You might also like