Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44657)
Facts:
Jose Onchengco v. City Court of Zamboanga, Gerardo Errea and Jose Errea, G.R. No. L-44657, January 22, 1980, Supreme Court En Banc, Teehankee, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Jose Onchengco sued private respondents Gerardo Errea and Jose Errea in the City Court of Zamboanga on May 7, 1973 for unlawful detainer. The complaint alleged that petitioner was the registered owner of two adjoining lots (Lots 1587-B-1 and 1587-B-2) occupied by respondents on an implied month-to-month tenancy; that petitioner had repeatedly requested respondents to vacate so he could sell the property to raise funds for his illness; and that respondents had been paying only token rentals (P3.00 and later P5.00) but had ceased payment since May 1973. The principal relief sought was ejectment; petitioner also sought to increase the monthly rental to P10.00 from January 1973.
In their answers respondents admitted long occupancy since 1946 and past payment of the nominal rentals, but denied petitioner’s assertion that they were requested to vacate. At trial petitioner testified to his repeated demands and urgent need to recover the property for medical and subsistence reasons; respondents offered no contrary evidence during petitioner’s presentation. After petitioner rested (March 27, 1974), nothing further occurred in the trial record for over two years.
In May 1976 respondents moved to dismiss, invoking Presidential Decree No. 20 and arguing that petitioner’s attempt to increase rent contravened the decree; the City Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the complaint sought an improper increase of rent. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, stressing that the main relief was ejectment to permit sale for medical needs; the City Court denied reconsideration in its July 1, 1976 order, finding petitioner’s necessity unproven.
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondents lose the right to present evidence when the trial court granted their demurrer to evidence and dismissed the complaint, such that reversal on appeal bars them from later offering evidence?
- May petitioner obtain judicial ejectment and recovery of possession despite the suspension effected by Presidential Decree No. 20 of the provisions of Article 1673(1) of the Civil Code?
- If PD No. 20 would otherwise bar ejectment, does Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 (as later enacted) and the factual circumstances ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)