Title
Amor vs. Gonzalez
Case
G.R. No. L-91
Decision Date
Apr 12, 1946
Owner Susano Amor sued Francisco Gonzalez for illegally occupying two Manila properties. Despite demands, Gonzalez refused to vacate or pay rent. Courts ruled in Amor's favor, affirming jurisdiction and rejecting Gonzalez's defense based on Amor's financial status.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-91)

Facts:

Ownership and Occupation of Premises

  • The plaintiff, Susano Amor, is the owner of the premises located at No. 2248 and No. 2250, Rizal Avenue, Manila.
  • In March 1944, Amor secured a judgment against Rosario Lozano to eject her from the premises at No. 2248, Rizal Avenue.
  • Despite the judgment, Amor was unable to take possession of the premises because the defendant, Francisco Gonzalez, occupied the premises without Amor's knowledge or consent.

Demands for Surrender of Possession

  • Amor repeatedly demanded that Gonzalez vacate the premises, but Gonzalez refused to comply.
  • Gonzalez failed to pay the reasonable monthly value of the use and occupation of the premises, which was set at P40 per month, starting from March 16, 1944.

Second Cause of Action

  • Gonzalez also occupied the second floor of No. 2250, Rizal Avenue, which Amor owned.
  • Amor requested Gonzalez to vacate the premises due to his own need for residence, but Gonzalez refused.
  • Gonzalez was in arrears in paying the monthly rent of P40 for the premises at No. 2250, Rizal Avenue, starting from July 16, 1943.

Defendant's Defense

  • Gonzalez argued that Amor was a person of means, owning multiple houses in Manila, and therefore did not need the premises in question.
  • Gonzalez claimed that his own needs were greater than Amor's.

Court's Findings

  • The Court of First Instance found that the evidence favored Amor and ordered Gonzalez to vacate both premises.
  • The court also ordered Gonzalez to pay the reasonable monthly value of the premises at P40 per month, starting from March 11, 1945, for No. 2248, and from July 16, 1943, for No. 2250, until he vacated the premises.

Issue:

  1. Whether the municipal court and the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the case, given that the cause of action allegedly accrued more than one year before the suit was filed.
  2. Whether the defendant's defense regarding the plaintiff's financial status and need for the premises was valid.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.