Case Summary (G.R. No. L-264)
Factual Background
The plaintiff owned the house at No. 589 Legarda Street, Manila, and about six years before the events in suit had leased it to the defendants upon a month-to-month basis for a monthly rental of P35. After the liberation of Manila, plaintiff informed the defendants on March 16, 1945 and again on April 7, 1945 to vacate the premises on or before April 15, 1945, because plaintiff required the house for his offices owing to the destruction of his prior office building during the war. The defendants refused to vacate.
Municipal Court Proceedings
Plaintiff filed ejectment in the Municipal Court of Manila on April 20, 1945. At the time of filing the defendants were in arrears for the rental corresponding to that month, the lease having required payment within the first five days of each month. The defendants paid that rental prior to the municipal court hearing. Plaintiff had originally sued for P500 damages per month but waived that claim before the municipal court hearing. The municipal court entered judgment for restitution and ordered payment of rentals at the rate of P35 a month from May 1, 1945 until defendants completely vacated the premises. The municipal court did not rule on damages because of the waiver.
Appeal to the Court of First Instance and Motion to Dismiss
Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila and moved to dismiss on the ground that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter due to the alleged claim for damages, thereby depriving the Court of First Instance of appellate jurisdiction. His Honor Judge Mamerto Roxas denied the motion by order dated July 21, 1945, reasoning that plaintiff had waived the damages claim in the municipal court and that the waiver was to be understood as carried into the appellate court.
Defense Presented at Trial in the Court of First Instance
At the trial in the Court of First Instance, defendant Lefrado Fernando asserted that the original contract authorized the defendants to continue occupying the house indefinitely so long as they faithfully paid the rentals. He further contended that this agreement had been ratified when a prior ejectment case between the parties during the Japanese regime was compounded in the municipal court. This theory sought to convert the lease into an indefinite tenancy subject solely to the lessees’ continued payment.
Trial Court Findings on Pleading and Credibility
The Court of First Instance credited the testimony of plaintiff’s witness, Vicente Singson Encarnacion, Jr., who testified that the lease had always been month-to-month. The court observed that the indefinite-tenancy theory advanced by defendant Lefrado Fernando had not been pleaded in the answer and treated its late presentation as an eleventh-hour theory. The Court of First Instance thus rejected the defense and rendered judgment consistent with the municipal court’s disposition.
Legal Reasoning on Article 1256 and the Nature of the Lease
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of First Instance. It held that allowing the defense would render the continuance and fulfillment of the contract dependent solely upon the lessees’ free and uncontrolled choice, contrary to the rule embodied in article 1256 of the Civil Code, because either party could unilaterally determine the lease’s life by ceasing or continuing payment. Such a construction would permit the lessees to prevent the lessor from discontinuing the lease so long as they elected to pay, and conversely would permit the lessees to terminate the lease by withholding payment even if the lessor desired continuation. The Court cited authority for this proposition, including the doctrinal text and Cuyugan vs . Santos, 34
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-264)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, was the owner of the house numbered 589 Legarda Street, Manila.
- JACINTA BALDOMAR ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS, included the lessees, Jacinta Baldomar and her son, Lefrado Fernando.
- The action originated in the municipal court of Manila and was appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila before reaching the Court in the present decision.
- The municipal court rendered judgment for restitution and rental payments, which judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Court of First Instance and subsequently reviewed by the Court.
Key Factual Allegations
- VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, leased the subject house to JACINTA BALDOMAR ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS, on a month-to-month basis for a monthly rental of P35.
- After the liberation of Manila plaintiff notified defendants on March 16, 1945 and on April 7, 1945 to vacate the premises on or before April 15, 1945 because plaintiff needed the house for offices.
- At the time the original action was filed on April 20, 1945 the defendants were in arrears for the rental corresponding to that month.
- The month’s rental was paid prior to the municipal court hearing, and subsequent rentals continued to accrue through August 1945 during the pendency of the appeals.
Claims and Relief Sought
- VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, sought restitution of possession and payment of rentals at P35 per month.
- The original complaint also contained a claim for damages of P500 per month which plaintiff waived before the municipal court hearing.
Procedural History
- The municipal court of Manila granted restitution and ordered payment of rentals at P35 per month from May 1, 1945 until defendants vacated.
- Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila and filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because of the damages claim.
- His Honor Judge Mamerto Roxas denied the motion to dismiss by order dated July 21, 1945 on the ground that the