Tolentino vs. catoy case digest trial#

Pertinent to the cases, thus,is the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Acab, et al. 149601-CV toimmediately vacate the lot with address at 1460 Velasquez Street, Tondo,Manila, and surrender possession thereof to the plainti spouses to pay thelatter the amount of P2,500.00 a month as reasonable compensation for theuse and occupancy of the leased premises from 1 October 1995 until thesame is nally vacated to pay the plainti-spouses the amount of P5,000.00as attorney's fees and to pay the costs of suit and HIESTASO ORDERED.The MeTC explained in its decision:Defendants themselves categorically state that the rentals on the respectivelots leased to them were paid every month.

149599-CV toimmediately vacate the lot situated at 479 Perla St., Tondo, Manila, andsurrender possession thereof to the plainti spouses to pay the latter theamount of P2,500.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the useand occupancy of the premises from l October 1995 until the same is nallyvacated to pay the plainti spouses the amount of P5,000.00 as attorney'sfees and to pay the costs of suit and3.Ordering the defendant Carmen Reyes in Civil Case No. Maria, Tondo, Manila, andsurrender the possession thereof to the plainti spouses to pay the latterthe amount of P2,000.00 a month as reasonable compensation for the useand occupancy of the premises from 1 October 1995 until the same is nallyvacated to pay the plainti spouses the amount of P5,000.00 as attorney'sfees and to pay the costs of suit 2.Ordering the defendant Amelia Mar in Civil Case No. 149598-CV toimmediately vacate the lot located at 1461 Sta. CDaTAIDuring the preliminary conference, the parties agreed on the following issues: 31.Whether or not each of the petitioners could be ejected on theground that the verbal contract of lease had expired and2.Whether or not the reasonable compensation demanded by therespondents was exorbitant or unconscionable.Ruling of the MeTCOn May 17, 1996, the MeTC ruled in favor of the respondents, 4 viz.:WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff spouses:1.Ordering defendant Emiliana Pea in Civil Case No. The three cases wereconsolidated upon the respondents' motion.In their respective answers, the petitioners uniformly contended that therespondents could not summarily eject them from their leased premises withoutcircumventing Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.

Tolentino vs. catoy case digest trial#

Maria, Tondo, Manila.Based on the parties' oral lease agreements, the petitioners agreed to pay monthlyrents, pegged as of Octoat the following rates, namely: for CarmenReyes, P570.00 for Amelia Mar, P840.00 and for Emiliana Pea, P480.00.On August 15, 1995, the respondents wrote a demand letter to each of thepetitioners, informing that they were terminating the respective month-to-monthlease contracts eective Septemand demanding that the petitionersvacate and remove their houses from their respective premises, with warning thatshould they not heed the demand, the respondents would charge themP3,000.00/month each as reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy ofthe premises from Octountil they would actually vacate.After the petitioners refused to vacate within the period allowed, the respondentsled on Octothree distinct complaints for ejectment against thepetitioners in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. 2AntecedentsThe petitioners are lessees of three distinct and separate parcels of land owned bythe respondents, located in the following addresses, to wit: Carmen Reyes, 1460Velasquez, Tondo, Manila for Amelia Mar, 479 Perla, Tondo, Manila and forEmiliana Pea, 1461 Sta. SPOUSES ARMANDO TOLENTINO AND LETICIATOLENTINO, respondents.DECISIONBERSAMIN, J p:By petition for review on certiorari, the petitioners appeal the adverse decisionpromulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) on March 31, 2000, 1 and the resolutionissued on Aug(denying their motion for reconsideration).