Case Summary (G.R. No. L-27598)
Facts of the Case
Pilar Dolla had been leasing two doors of Cue's building since August 1958 for a monthly rental fee of P1,500, which she utilized for her bakery business. On February 14, 1966, Cue executed a deed of sale to PSB for P700,000, which included a covenant requiring Cue to deliver possession of the property free from tenants by May 31, 1966, or forfeit a retention amount of P80,000. Cue notified Dolla of the sale and asked her to vacate, which Dolla refused. Following Dolla's non-compliance with Cue's termination of the lease, Ms. Cue filed an ejectment suit against Dolla on May 4, 1966.
Proceedings in Lower Courts
The City Court of Manila rendered a judgment on June 18, 1966, allowing Dolla to occupy the premises for another year, conditioned upon the payment of the agreed-upon rent. This judgment was subsequently appealed by both parties to the Court of First Instance. Before the trial could proceed, PSB filed a motion to intervene along with a complaint for intervention asserting their rights as the new owner and seeking to eject Dolla while demanding compensation for the use of the property amounting to P14,000 monthly.
Denial of Intervention
The trial court denied PSB's motion for intervention on December 15, 1966, stating it was too late to intervene since PSB had failed to do so in the city court and that allowing intervention would raise new issues not previously considered. PSB's motion for reconsideration was denied on February 24, 1967, prompting PSB to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis of Intervention
The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether intervention during the pendency of an appeal and before the trial in the Court of First Instance was permissible. The Court determined that the term "trial" within the context of the Rules of Court does include trials de novo. As the perfected appeal vacated the lower court's judgment, PSB was entitled to intervene as the case was treated anew, allowing for the inclusion of new parties.
The Nature of the Cause of Action
The Court noted that such intervention would not alter the cause of action, which remained an ejectment case initiated by Cue against Dolla. The increase in compensation sought by PSB would not change the original action of ejectment. Citing the precedent set in the case of Mapua vs. Suburban Theaters, Inc., the Court affirmed that an intervenor's request for a different amount
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-27598)
Case Background
- The appeal challenges the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which denied Philippine Savings Bank's (PSB) motion to intervene in a case of unlawful detainer.
- Defendant Pilar Dolla has been the lessee of two doors of plaintiff Elisa Medina Cue's building since August 1958, with a month-to-month lease at a rental of P1,500.
- Dolla operated a bakery business in the leased premises.
Sale of Property
- On February 14, 1966, Cue sold the property, including the leased premises, to PSB for P700,000.
- The deed of sale required Cue to deliver possession of the premises free from tenants by May 31, 1966, with a penalty of forfeiting P80,000 if she failed to do so.
- Cue informed Dolla of the sale and requested her to vacate the premises, which Dolla refused.
Lease Termination and Ejectment Suit
- On March 7, 1966, Cue officially terminated Dolla's lease effective at the end of March and demanded that she vacate.
- Dolla did not vacate, prompting Cue to file an ejectment suit against her on May 4, 1966.
City Court Ruling
- The City Court ruled in favor of Dolla, allowing her to stay for one year, contingent upon her continued payment of rent, and ordered her to vacate if she failed to pay.
Appeal to Court of First Instance
- Both parties appealed the City Court's dec