Facts:

On May 21, 1958, Vicente Sto. Domingo Bernardo, Guadalupe R. Bernardo, Filomena R. Bernardo, Vicente R. Bernardo, Susana R. Bernardo, Natividad R. Bernardo, and Domingo R. Bernardo (hereinafter referred to as "petitioners") initiated ejectment proceedings against Westminster High School, represented by Elizabeth Kho (hereinafter referred to as "respondent"), in the Municipal Court of Manila. The petitioners claimed that on November 15, 1946, they entered into a lease agreement with the respondent for a parcel of land located in Tondo, Manila, with an initial monthly rental of P1,200.00, later reduced to P1,000.00. The lease stipulated that rent was to be paid at the end of each month. The respondent had been compliant with rental payments until March 15, 1958, after which it defaulted. In its defense, the respondent acknowledged the existence of the lease but argued that it had a practice of allowing deferred payments during the summer months of April and ...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Petitioners: Vicente Sto. Domingo Bernardo, Guadalupe R. Bernardo, Filomena R. Bernardo, Vicente R. Bernardo, Susana R. Bernardo, Natividad R. Bernardo, and Domingo R. Bernardo.
• Respondents: Hon. Francisco B. Jose (Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila) and Westminster High School (represented by Elizabeth Kho).

Lease Agreement

• On November 15, 1946, the petitioners and respondent Westminster High School entered into a lease contract for a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila.
• The monthly rental was initially P1,200.00, later reduced to P1,000.00.
• The lease commenced on January 16, 1947, and the rental was to be paid "at the end of each month."

Default in Payment

• Respondent paid the rental up to March 15, 1958, but defaulted thereafter.
• Petitioners filed an ejectment case in the Municipal Court of Manila on May 21, 1958.

Judgment of the Municipal Court

• On July 9, 1958, the Municipal Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondent to pay the arrears and future rentals on time, with a warning of ejectment for non-compliance.
• Respondent deposited the arrears and appealed to the Court of First Instance.

Payment During Appeal

• During the appeal, respondent deposited the rentals late:
  • June 16 to July 15 rental: Deposited on August 1, 1958 (due July 31).
  • July 16 to August 15 rental: Deposited on September 12, 1958 (due August 31).
  • August 16 to September 15 rental: Deposited on October 1, 1958 (due September 30).

Motion for Execution

• Petitioners filed a motion for execution on October 1, 1958, citing non-payment of the August-September rental by September 30, 1958.
• The Court of First Instance denied the motion, ruling that the deposit on October 1, 1958, was timely under Rule 72, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Existence of a Lease Contract: The parties admitted the existence of a lease contract, and its terms (payment at the end of each month) should govern the payment of rentals during the appeal.
2. Rule 72, Section 8 Interpretation: The provision allowing payment "on or before the tenth day of each calendar month" applies only in the absence of a contract. When a contract exists, its terms must be followed.
3. Judgment of the Municipal Court: The Municipal Court’s judgment, while not expressly stating the existence of the lease contract, impliedly recognized it by referencing the rental amount and payment terms.
4. Immediate Execution: Since the respondent failed to pay the rentals on time as stipulated in the lease contract, immediate execution of the judgment was justified.