Title
Basilio vs. Natividad
Case
G.R. No. L-1529
Decision Date
Jan 26, 1948
Jose Basilio appealed an ejectment ruling but failed to pay rent during appeal. SC upheld execution order, rejecting his unsubstantiated claims of payment refusal and offsetting improvements.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1529)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Recurrente (Petitioner): Jose Basilio, the defendant in the ejectment case.
    • Recurridos (Respondents):
      • Hon. Felipe Natividad, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
      • Domingo Queri, the plaintiff in the ejectment case.
      • L. Pasicolan, Sheriff of Manila.
  2. Nature of the Case:

    • The case involves an ejectment proceeding initiated by Domingo Queri against Jose Basilio. The Municipal Court of Manila ruled in favor of Queri, and Basilio appealed to the Court of First Instance.
  3. Key Events:

    • During the pendency of the appeal, Basilio failed to pay the rent for May 1947, amounting to P400, by June 10, 1947, as required by Rule 72, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.
    • Basilio claimed that he had offered to pay the rent on June 10, but Queri refused to accept it, implying a waiver of the rent. However, Basilio did not deposit the rent in court as an alternative.
    • Basilio also raised a defense that he had made useful improvements and expenses on the property amounting to P2,714, which he claimed should offset the rent owed.
  4. Order of Execution:

    • Judge Natividad issued an order of execution during the appeal, citing Basilio’s failure to pay or deposit the rent as required by law.

Issue:

  1. Primary Issue:

    • Whether Judge Natividad committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of execution during the pendency of the appeal.
  2. Subsidiary Issues:

    • Whether Basilio’s claim of having offered payment to Queri on June 10, 1947, and Queri’s alleged refusal, justified the non-payment of rent.
    • Whether Basilio’s defense of having made useful improvements and expenses on the property (P2,714) could offset the rent owed, thereby justifying the suspension of the execution order.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Natividad in issuing the order of execution. The Court ruled as follows:

  1. On the Order of Execution:

    • The issuance of the order of execution was justified because Basilio was in default for failing to pay or deposit the rent for May 1947 by the required date. The Court emphasized that the duty of the judge to order execution in such cases is mandatory under Rule 72, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.
  2. On Basilio’s Claim of Offering Payment:

    • The Court rejected Basilio’s claim that he had offered payment to Queri on June 10, 1947, and that Queri refused to accept it. The Court found this claim to be unsubstantiated and illogical, especially since Queri later moved for execution on June 18, 1947. The Court also noted that Basilio could have deposited the rent in court if Queri had refused to accept it, but he failed to do so without providing a valid reason.
  3. On Basilio’s Defense of Useful Improvements:

    • The Court held that Basilio’s claim of having made useful improvements and expenses (P2,714) was not a valid defense to suspend the execution order. The Court pointed out that this defense was raised for the first time on appeal and was not presented in the Municipal Court. Moreover, the alleged debt of P2,714 was not yet liquidated or enforceable, whereas the rent for May 1947 was a liquidated and enforceable obligation.
  4. On the Return of the Property:

    • The Court noted that Basilio had voluntarily returned the leased property to Queri on August 10, 1947, rendering much of the case academic.

Ratio:

  1. Mandatory Nature of Execution in Ejectment Cases:

    • Under Rule 72, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, when a tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent during the pendency of an appeal, the court is obligated to issue an order of execution. This is a categorical imperative, and failure to do so would constitute an abuse of discretion.
  2. Burden of Proof on the Tenant:

    • A tenant who claims to have offered payment but was refused must substantiate this claim with evidence. If the payment is refused, the tenant must deposit the rent in court to avoid default. Failure to do so without a valid reason constitutes mora (default).
  3. Defenses Must Be Timely and Substantiated:

    • Defenses such as claims for useful improvements or expenses must be raised in a timely manner and supported by evidence. A mere allegation of such claims, especially if raised for the first time on appeal, does not justify the suspension of an execution order.
  4. Liquidation and Enforceability of Claims:

    • For a claim to offset a debt, it must be liquidated, enforceable, and mutually compensable under Article 1196 of the Civil Code. Unliquidated or unproven claims cannot be used to offset a liquidated and enforceable obligation like rent.
  5. Voluntary Return of Property:

    • The voluntary return of the leased property by the tenant renders the issue of execution largely academic, as the primary purpose of the ejectment proceeding (recovery of possession) has already been achieved.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Judge Natividad did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of execution. Basilio’s failure to pay or deposit the rent, coupled with his unsubstantiated defenses, justified the issuance of the execution order. The Court also noted that Basilio’s voluntary return of the property made much of the case moot.


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.