CETUS DEVELOPMENT, INC. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 77648, 1989
Medialdea J., PRF

SUBJECT
Breach of Obligation > Delay > Mora Solvendi

CASE SUMMARY
The private respondents were unable to pay their lease for three months because the new owner of premises, Cetus
Devt. Inc., did not sent a collector. Cetus demanded that the respondents should vacate the premises and pay their
overdue debt. The respondents immediately tendered their payments, which were accepted by the petitioner with
the condition that the acceptance was without prejudice to the filing of ejectment suit. The ejectment suit was filed
but it was dismissed by the courts because records show that the time of filing of the complaint, the rentals had
all been paid therefore there is no cause of action for the ejectment case.

DOCTRINES

FACTS
The private respondents (Ederlina Navalta, Ong Teng, Jose Liwanag, Leandro Canlas, Victoria Sudario, and
Flora Nagbuya) were lessees of the premises located in Quiapo, Manila. Each month, the respondents pay to
a collector of Susana Realty based on their individual verbal leases (P40.35-P96.10).
In March 1984, Susana Realty sold the leased premises to the petitioner, Cetus Development, Inc.
In the succeeding months of July, August and September 1984, the respondents failed to pay their monthly
individual rentals as no collector came.
In October, 1984, the petitioner sent a letter to each of the private respondents demanding that they vacate
the subject premises and to pay the back rentals for the months of July, August and September, 1984, within
fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof.
Immediately upon the receipt of the said demand letters on October 10, 1984, the private respondents paid
their respective arrearages in rent which were accepted by the petitioner subject to the unilateral condition
that the acceptance was without prejudice to the filing of an ejectment suit. Subsequent monthly rental
payments were likewise accepted by the petitioner under the same condition.
The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, RTC and CA dismissed the ejectment suit.

ISSUES
WON there exists a delay of payment considering the fact that upon demand by petitioner from private respondents
for payment of their back rentals, the latter immediately tendered payment which was accepted by petitioner. (N)

HOLDINGS
NO. There was no failure yet on the part of private respondents to pay rents for three consecutive months. As the
terms of the individual verbal leases which were on a month-to-month basis were not alleged and proved, the
general rule on necessity of demand applies, to wit: there is default in the fulfillment of an obligation when the
creditor demands payment at the maturity of the obligation or at any time thereafter.

The facts on record fail to show proof that petitioner demanded the payment of the rentals when the obligation
matured. Coupled with the fact that no collector was sent as previously done in the past, the private respondents
cannot be held guilty of mora solvendi or delay in the payment of rentals.

When petitioner first demanded the payment of the 3-month arrearages and private respondents lost no time in
making tender and payment, which petitioner accepted, no cause of action for ejectment accrued. Hence, its
demand to vacate was premature as it was an exercise of a non-existing right to rescind.

Petition for review is denied. Decision of CA is affirmed.