PASRICHA V. DON LUIS DISON REALTY (REMEDIAL, CIVIL, CORPORATION)

We uphold the capacity of respondent company to institute the ejectment case. Although the SEC suspended and eventually revoked respondent's certificate of registration on 16 February 1995, records show that it instituted the action for ejectment on 15 December 1993. Accordingly, when the case was commenced, its registration was not yet revoked. Besides, as correctly held by the appellate court, the SEC later set aside its earlier orders of suspension and revocation of respondent's certificate, rendering the issue moot and academic.

UNLAWFUL DETAINER cases are summary in nature. In such cases, the elements to be proved and resolved are the fact of lease and the expiration or violation of its terms. Specifically, the essential requisites or unlawful detainer are:

1. the fact of lease by virtue of a contract, express or implied;
2. the expiration or termination of the possessor's right to hold possession;
3. withholding by lessee of possession of the land or building after the expiration or termination of the right to possess;
4. letter of demand upon the lessee to pay the rental or comply with the terms of the lease and vacate the premises; and
5. the filing of the action within 1 year from the date of the last demand received by the defendant.

It is undisputed that petitioners and respondents entered into 2 separate contracts of lease involving 9 rooms. Records likewise show that respondent repeatedly demanded that petitioners vacate the premises, but the latter refused to heed the demand; thus, they remained in possession of the premises.

What was clearly established by the evidence was petitioners' non-payment of rentals because ostensibly, they did not know to whom payment should be made. However, this did not justify their failure to pay, because if such were the case, they were not without any remedy. They should have availed of the provisions of the Civil Code on consignation of payment and of the Rules of Court on interpleader.

CONSIGNATION shall be made by depositing the things due at the disposal of the judicial authority, before whom the tender of payment shall be proved in a proper case, and the announcement of the consignation on other cases.

In the instant case, consignation alone would have produced the effect of payment of the rentals. The rationale for consignation is to avoid the performance of an obligation becoming more onerous to the debtor by reason of causes not imputable to him. Tender of payment must be accompanied by consignation on order that the effect of payment may be produced.

INTERPLEADER is proper whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest in whole or in part is not disputed by claimants, he may bring an action against conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves.

Otherwise stated, an action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals should be made due to conflicting claims on the property (or the right to collect). The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against double liability but to protect him against double vexation in respect of one liability.

Notably, instead of availing of the above remedies, petitioners opted to refrain from making payments.

Moreover, Article 1673 of the Civil Code gives the lessor the right to judicially eject the lessees in case of non-payment of the monthly rentals. A contract of lease is a consensual, bilateral, onerous, and commutative contract by which the owner temporarily grants the use of his property to another, who undertakes to pay the rent therefor. For failure to pay the rent, petitioners have no right to remain in the leased premises.