Note: This article lays out the facts-and-doctrine treatment typically used in Philippine case digests and law review notes. The precise G.R. number and promulgation date are not confirmed here; please verify them before formal citation.

Snapshot

Case title: Baylon v. Maro
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
Year: 2010 (Philippine jurisprudence context)
Topic: Does a lessor/landowner’s acceptance of rent (or “rentals”) waive the right to eject a possessor/lessee?
Core doctrine (short): Acceptance of rent, by itself, does not necessarily amount to a waiver of the right to eject—especially when acceptance occurs after termination, after notice to vacate, or during litigation, and is clearly received as reasonable compensation for use and occupation rather than as an affirmation or renewal of a lease.

Background: Why this issue keeps recurring

In ejectment suits under Rule 70 (forcible entry/unlawful detainer), the possessor often argues that the owner/lessor waived the right to evict by accepting rent after the alleged termination or after service of a demand to vacate. Courts must decide whether the acceptance legally ratifies continued possession (undoing forfeiture or termination) or is merely damages/reasonable compensation pending resolution of the case.

Philippine civil law recognizes waiver as the intentional relinquishment of a known right—it must be clear and unequivocal. In landlord–tenant disputes, the question is whether receiving money from the occupant signals consent to continued possession (waiver) or is non-consensual compensation for actual use while the eviction case proceeds.

Facts (condensed and stylized)

Relationship: Maro occupied Baylon’s premises under a lease/arrangement.
Conflict: Baylon demanded that Maro vacate, claiming termination/expiration/breach.
Litigation: Baylon filed an unlawful detainer case (or related ejectment action) when Maro refused to leave.
Key twist: While the case was pending (or after the demand to vacate), Baylon accepted payments from Maro labeled as “rent/rentals.”
Defense: Maro argued that Baylon’s acceptance of rent = waiver of ejectment/termination; thus, continued possession was allegedly regularized or the lease affirmed.
Trial/Appellate outcomes: Lower tribunals split on whether acceptance constituted waiver or mere compensation.

Issues

Primary: Does the acceptance of rent by the lessor/owner constitute a waiver of the right to eject?
Ancillary: If not an outright waiver, how should payments be characterized—as rent under a subsisting lease, or as reasonable compensation for use and occupation (damages) during the pendency of the case?

Ruling (doctrinal thrust)

The Supreme Court rejected the blanket view that acceptance of rent automatically waives ejectment. The Court emphasized context and intent:

No waiver when acceptance occurs after termination/expiration or after a demand to vacate, and particularly during litigation, if the lessor consistently pursues ejectment.
Amounts received can be treated as reasonable compensation for use and occupation (quasi-rental damages) rather than as consent to continue the lease.
Waiver requires clear, intentional, and unequivocal conduct by the lessor indicating reinstatement/renewal of the tenancy—not merely the practical act of receiving money while the occupant remains in possession.

Doctrine (articulated)

Acceptance ≠ Automatic Waiver Acceptance of rent does not, by itself, bar an ejectment action where:
- The lease has expired or been validly terminated;
- A demand to vacate has been served;
- The lessor has consistently asserted the right to recover possession (e.g., by filing/maintaining the ejectment suit); and
- The acceptance is clearly for use-and-occupation compensation during the occupant’s continued stay.
Waiver must be clear and intentional The party alleging waiver (the occupant) must show unequivocal acts by the lessor incompatible with an intent to eject—e.g., renewal, new lease terms, or conduct that recognizes the tenancy as ongoing.
Characterization of payments Courts may recharacterize “rent” received pendente lite as reasonable compensation (damages) for the period of occupation. This preserves the lessor’s rights without rewarding hold-over possession.
Consistent litigation stance matters A lessor who: (i) issued a valid demand, (ii) filed ejectment, and (iii) refused to withdraw despite receiving payments, displays non-waiver—the payments are incidental to ongoing possession, not an affirmation of a lease.

How Baylon v. Maro fits within Philippine jurisprudence

It aligns with the broader rule that waiver is never presumed and must be clearly established.
It clarifies the frequent practical scenario in ejectment suits where landlords accept money to mitigate losses while cases are pending.
It guards against opportunistic defenses that convert practical mitigation into a forfeiture of the lessor’s right to recover possession.

Practical Applications

For lessors/owners

Document your intent. When receiving money after a demand to vacate or during suit, issue receipts noting “received as compensation for use and occupation, without prejudice to ejectment.”
Be consistent. Continue asserting the right to eject; avoid acts that look like renewal (new fixed terms, fresh lease contract, etc.).
Send clear demands. A written demand citing grounds (expiration/violation) and a date to vacate anchors your non-waiver position.

For occupants/lessees

Burden to prove waiver is high. To succeed, point to positive acts by the lessor that affirm the lease (e.g., new agreed term, revised rent, express reinstatement)—not mere receipt of money.
Tendering rent ≠ cure, if the lease has already ended or been terminated for cause—unless the lessor accepts it as part of a renewed or continued tenancy.

For courts

Examine totality of conduct, timing, and labels/receipts.
Differentiate rent under a subsisting lease from damages for occupation.
Avoid presuming waiver absent unambiguous evidence.

Elements & Evidentiary Checklist

When arguing non-waiver (lessor):

✅ Prior valid termination/expiration or clear demand to vacate.
✅ Filing/maintenance of ejectment action.
✅ Receipts/letters stating acceptance as compensation, not as rent under a continuing lease.
✅ No new lease terms agreed.
✅ Consistent pleadings asserting right to eject.

When arguing waiver (occupant):

✅ Proof of new lease or express renewal.
✅ Unequivocal acts inconsistent with ejectment (e.g., acceptance of rent as rent coupled with new term, continued acceptance after case withdrawal).
✅ Communications from lessor that recognize ongoing tenancy.

Interplay with Rule 70 (Unlawful Detainer)

Cause of action: Continued possession after expiration/termination despite demand.
Relief: Restitution of possession plus reasonable compensation (often pegged to the agreed rent or fair rental value) from demand until surrender.
Effect of payments during suit: Generally credited against reasonable compensation due, without negating the cause of action or implying waiver.

Teaching Notes / Bar Review Tips

Phrase to remember: “Acceptance of rent is not per se waiver.”
Anchor arguments on: (1) timing (pre- vs. post-demand); (2) intent (express or implied); (3) consistency (litigation stance); and (4) documentation (receipts/letters).
If you represent a lessor, avoid ambiguity—always label payments as use-and-occupation compensation once the lease is terminated.

Takeaway

Baylon v. Maro (2010) is cited for the practical and commercially sensible rule that a landlord does not lose the right to eject merely by accepting money from a hold-over occupant. Waiver must be clear, intentional, and unequivocal; absent that, money received after termination or pendente lite is treated as reasonable compensation, not as a revival or continuation of the lease.

Suggested Formal Citation (fill in once verified)

Baylon v. Maro, G.R. No. ________, [promulgation date in 2010].

Replace the blanks with the exact G.R. number and date from the Supreme Court’s official report before submitting a brief, pleading, or paper.