Title
Lim Si vs. Lim
Case
G.R. No. L-8496
Decision Date
Apr 25, 1956
Lim Sr. sued Isabelo P. Lim over disputed rent for leased premises; court ruled consignation improper, favoring ejectment case for rental disputes.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 124213)

Facts of the Case

The appeal arises from the judgment dismissing Lim Sr.'s complaint against Isabello P. Lim regarding rental disputes for two doors of an accessorial building located on Misericordia Street. Lim Sr., who had been a long-time lessee, was allowed to occupy the two doors starting July 15, 1953, without a definite rental agreement, other than a verbal understanding to match the rents paid by other lessees. In January 1954, Lim Sr. proposed a rent of P600 for both doors, which was rejected by the defendant, leading to an eventual deposit of P1,000 made by the plaintiff to cover rental payments starting January 1954. Subsequently, Lim Sr. consistently offered P600 as rental, but this was declined by the defendant, who later demanded P700.

Procedural History

As the situation deteriorated over rental payments, Lim Sr., fearing unlawful detainer action, continued to deposit the rent with both the defendant and the court. The initial complaint, seeking a court determination of the rental amount, was filed on August 27, 1954. The defendant moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it constituted a consignation, which was not the appropriate remedy, and asserted that the matter should be addressed as a forcible entry and unlawful detainer case under Rule 72 of the Rules of Court.

Issue of Dismissal

The court dismissed the complaint, determining that the dispute over rentals was connected to a pending ejectment case filed by the defendant shortly after Lim Sr.'s complaint. The court concluded that Lim Sr. lacked a cause of action; there was no violation of his rights, nor any obligation breached by the defendant. Furthermore, any proposed rental amount had not been mutually agreed upon, and the defendant had the right to impose a rental amount which Lim Sr. had to accept or vacate the property.

Legal Principles Involved

The court asserted that only the property owner has the authority to fix rental amounts, and the judicial system cannot enforce rentals against the will of the lessor. Thus, it reiterated that a lease implies consensual agreement terms, and without such consent, no legal lease can exist. The ruling referenced the established legal principle that disputes regarding rental

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.