Case Digest (G.R. No. L-264)
Facts:
Vicente Singson Encarnacion v. Jacinta Baldomar et al., G.R. No. L-264, October 04, 1946, Supreme Court Second Division, Hilado, J., writing for the Court.
Vicente Singson Encarnacion (plaintiff-appellee) owned the house at No. 589 Legarda Street, Manila, which he had leased about six years earlier on a month-to-month basis to Jacinta Baldomar and her son Lefrado Fernando for a monthly rent of P35. After the liberation of Manila, on March 16 and April 7, 1945, plaintiff gave notice directing defendants to vacate the premises on or before April 15, 1945 because he needed the property for his offices (his previous office building having been destroyed). Defendants continued in possession.
Plaintiff filed an ejectment action in the Municipal Court of Manila on April 20, 1945. At the time of filing the defendants were in arrears for the then-current month's rent (rent was payable within the first five days of each month). Before the municipal-court hearing the arrearage was paid, and the municipal court rendered judgment ordering restitution of the premises and payment of rentals at P35 per month from May 1, 1945 until defendants vacated. Although plaintiff had originally claimed P500 monthly damages in the complaint, he waived that claim before the municipal-court hearing and the municipal-court decision made no award for damages.
Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila and filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because of the claim for damages, and therefore the CFI lacked appellate jurisdiction. Judge Mamerto Roxas denied the motion to dismiss (order dated July 21, 1945), reasoning that plaintiff had waived the damages claim in the municipal court and that waiver carried through to the CFI stage.
At trial in the CFI, defendants principally contended (expressed by Lefrado Fernando) that the original contract authorized them to occupy the house indefinitely so long as they continued to pay rent, and that this arrangement had been ratified by a prior ejectment proceeding during the Japanese regime that had allegedly been compounded in the municipal court. The CFI credited plaintiff’s witness (Vicente S. Encarnacion, Jr.) that the lease had always been month-to-month and further observed that the indefinite-term theory had not been pleaded in the answer and therefore bore the earmarks of a last-minute defense. The CFI concluded that allowing the defendants’ claimed right to unilaterally continue the lease would make the lease’s existence and fulfillment depend solely on the lessee’s will, contrary to Article 1256 of the Civil Code, and entered judgment for restitution and for delivery to plaintiff of certain rental deposits that ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because of plaintiff’s original claim for damages?
- Was the lease a month-to-month tenancy (entitling the lessor to restitution) or an indefinite tenancy binding on the lessor so lon...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)