Cetus Development Corp vs CA.176 SCRA 72 (1989) FACTS 1. Respondents Ong, Teng, Liwanag, Canlas, Sudario, Nagbuya, were lessees of premises in Quiapo, Mania, originally owned by the Susana Realy. 2. They were individual, verbal leases, on a month-to -manth basis. 3. Rental payments were made to a collector of the Susana Realty who went to the premises monthly. 4. Premises were sold to petitioner, Cetus Development, in 1984. 5, The private respondents continued to pay monthly rentals to a collector sent by the petitioner from Aprilto June, 1984. 6. In August and September, they failed to pay because no collector came. 7. In October, pettioner sent letters demanding they vacate the premises and pay back rentals. Immediately upon receipt of the demand letters, private respondents paid arearages, which were accepted subject to the condition that the acceptance was without prejudice to the filing of an ejectment suit 8. Subsequent monthly rental payments were accepted under the same condition 9. For failure of the private respondents to vacate the premises as demanded in the leter, petitioner filed wih the Metropolitan Trial court complaints for ejectment, 410. Trial cour dismissed the case, and subsequently the Regional Trial Court did so, as did the CA. ISSUES: WON there exists a cause of action, when the complaints for unlawful detainer were fled considering the fact that upon demand by petitioner for payment of back rentals, respondents immediately tendered payment, which was accepted. HELD For purposes of bringing an ejectment suit, 2 requisites: 1) must be failure to pay rent/comply with conditions of lease, and 2) must be DEMAND to both pay or to comply and vacate. In this case, no cause of action for ejectment has accrued. NO FAILURE YET on the part of private respondents, because upon demand, they paid. The petiioner’s demand to vacate was PREMATURE, an exercise of a non-existing right to rescind. Peiiioner claims that its failure to send a collector is not a valid defense because sending a collector is not one of the obligations of the lessor under Article 1654: but 1) it was established that it was customary for private respondents to pay the rentals through a collector, and 2) Anicle 1257 provides that where no agreement has been designated for the payment of rentals, the place of payment is at the domicile of the defendants. Petition for certiorari denied, CA decision affirmed.