Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALMARIO SIAPIAN v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 197725 2013-07-31	MARK ANTHONY ESTEBAN v. SPS. RODRIGO C. MARCELO AND CARMEN T. MARCELO BRION, J.
Since 1947, case law has consistently upheld this rule. "Mere failure to pay rents does not ipso facto make unlawful tenant's possession of the premises. It is the owner's demand for tenant to vacate the premises, when the tenant has failed to pay the rents on time, and tenant's refusal or failure to vacate, which make unlawful withholding of possession."[21] In 2000, we reiterated this rule when we declared: "It is therefore clear that before the lessor may institute such action, he must make a demand upon the lessee to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate the premises. It is the owner's demand for the tenant to vacate the premises and the tenant's refusal to do so which makes unlawful the withholding of possession. Such refusal violates the owner's right of possession giving rise to an action for unlawful detainer."[22]
	GR No. 149189 2008-09-03	LETICIA T. FIDELDIA v. SPS. RAUL AND ELEONOR MULATO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For the purpose of bringing an unlawful detainer suit, two requisites must concur: (1) there must be failure to pay rent or comply with the conditions of the lease, and (2) there must be demand both to pay or to comply and vacate. The first requisite refers to the existence of the cause of action for unlawful detainer, while the second refers to the jurisdictional requirement of demand in order that said cause of action may be pursued.[26] Implied in the first requisite, which is needed to establish the cause of action of the plaintiff in an unlawful detainer suit, is the presentation of the contract of lease entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant, the same being needed to establish the lease conditions alleged to have been violated. Thus, in Bachrach Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[27] the Court held that the evidence needed to establish the cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is (1) a lease contract and (2) the violation of that lease by the defendant.
	GR NO. 158231 2007-06-19	BABY ARLENE LARANO v. SPS. ALFREDO CALENDACION AND RAFAELA T. CALENDACION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Applied to the present case, petitioner, as vendor, must comply with two requisites for the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit: (a) there must be failure to pay the installment due or comply with the conditions of the Contract to Sell; and (b) there must be demand both to pay or to comply and vacate within the periods specified in Section 2[30] of Rule 70, namely: 15 days in case of land and 5 days in case of buildings. The first requisite refers to the existence of the cause of action for unlawful detainer, while the second refers to the jurisdiction requirement of demand in order that said cause of action may be pursued.[31]
	GR NO. 137694 2005-01-17	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The causes of action, and logically, the issues in the two cases, are crystal clear, very much different, requiring divergent adjudications. In short, while there is identity of parties, there is NO identity of subject matter and cause of action. This being so, different causes of action and circumstances in different cases would make reliance on the doctrine of res judicata misplaced.[31] Res judicata cannot be interposed to bar the determination of a subsequent case if the first and second cases involve different subject matters and seek different reliefs.[32]