Case Digest (G.R. No. 29292)
Facts:
Tomasa C. Viuda de Pamintuan v. Juan Tiglao, G.R. No. 29292, March 13, 1929, Supreme Court En Banc, Ostrand, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff, Tomasa C. Vda. de Pamintuan, sued as guardian of her five minor children (bearing the surname Pamintuan y Centeno), and the defendant was Juan Tiglao.
On March 18, 1925, Jose V. Ramirez, as attorney-in-fact for Florentino Pamintuan, executed a written lease to Tiglao of two parcels in Barrio Dolores, Mabalacat, Pampanga, for two agricultural years (April 1925–March 1927). Paragraph 4 of the contract fixed annual rent at 300 cavans of palay and 400 piculs of sugar, deliverable on or before March 31 of each year; paragraph 11 stipulated that in case of litigation for non-compliance the lessee would pay P1,000 for attorney’s fees and expenses; another clause provided an additional indemnity of 15% per annum for delayed payment of rent.
The rent for the first year was not paid by March 31, 1926; after demand, Tomasa instituted, on September 10, 1926, an action before the Justice of the Peace of Mabalacat to recover possession of the two parcels, the unpaid rents (palay and sugar), damages, attorney’s fee, and costs. The justice of the peace rendered judgment for plaintiff. Tiglao appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), where he contested the court’s jurisdiction and pleaded counterclaims; the CFI again ruled for the plaintiff, ordering restitution of the lands and awarding rents for the agricultural years 1925–26 and 1926–27 (three hundred cavans palay and four hundred piculs sugar each year) or their money equivalents at P3.75 per cavan, with interest from April 10, 1926. The trial court refused to enforce the stipulated 15% indemnity (treating it as usurious interest) and denied recovery of the stipulated P1,000 attorney’s fee; the justice of the peace had earlier declined to award the P1,000 because it exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction. Both parties appealed: plaintiff as to the denial of the P1,000 fee and the 15% stipulated indemnity; defendant as to jurisdictional rulings and denial of his attorney’s fee.
During the proceedings the defendant voluntarily surrendered possession to the plainti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the justice of the peace (and, on appeal, the Court of First Instance) have jurisdiction to entertain the landlord’s action for restitution and rents prior to the expiration of the lease term (i.e., was the action premature)?
- Did the defendant’s voluntary surrender of possession or his counterclaim destroy the lower courts’ jurisdiction?
- Was the contract stipulation for an additional 15% per annum on overdue rents enforceable, or was it usurious and therefore unenforceable?
- Could the plaintiff recover the stipulated P1,000 attorney’s fee in the justice of the peace action (and could the CFI, on appeal, award it), and could the defendant recover his attorney’s fee under...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)