Title
Borja vs. Borja
Case
G.R. No. 42185
Decision Date
Sep 10, 1935
Dispute over rent, counterclaims, and res judicata involving property possession, unpaid rent, and prior litigation between parties.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 42185)

Facts:

  1. Assignment of the Case: The case was initially assigned to the First Division of the court. After a decision was rendered, it was set aside upon a motion by the defendant, as the total claims exceeded P10,000. The defendant suggested reassigning the case to the Second Division, but the court rejected this suggestion, citing Act No. 4023, which allows equal distribution of cases between divisions.
  2. Plaintiff's Claim: Quintin de Borja, as the administrator of the estate of Marcelo de Borja, sought to recover possession of a building located at 1551 Azcarraga Street, Manila, and unpaid rent at varying rates from June 1, 1921, to the date of restitution.
  3. Defendant's Counterclaims:
    • First Counterclaim: Rent for a tinaja factory at P200 per month from June 13, 1922, to March 15, 1932, totaling P23,400.
    • Second Counterclaim: P5,082.97, including funeral expenses for Marcelo de Borja (P200), firewood supplied to the plaintiff (P823.02), and one-third of advances made for the Hacienda de Jalajala (P4,059.93).
  4. Lower Court’s Decision:
    • The defendant was found liable for rent at P30 per month until December 1, 1927, and P50 thereafter.
    • The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant P200 per month for the tinaja factory from December 7, 1927, to March 15, 1932, P200 for funeral expenses, P823 for firewood, and P4,059.93 for Hacienda de Jalajala advances.
  5. Appeals: Both parties appealed the lower court’s decision.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Res Judicata: Claims previously adjudicated in another case (G.R. No. 34478) cannot be relitigated.
  2. Tacit Acceptance of Rent Increase: The defendant’s failure to object to the rent increase in November 1927 constituted tacit acceptance.
  3. Prescription and Lack of Merit: The defendant’s claim for advances to the Hacienda de Jalajala was filed too late and lacked merit, as the payments were made from his father’s funds, not his own personal funds.


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.