January 1948 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > January 1948 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-1555 January 31, 1948 - GREGORIO NICOMEDES v. RAMON A. YCASIANO ET AL.
080 Phil 184:
080 Phil 184:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-1555. January 31, 1948.]
GREGORIO NICOMEDES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. RAMON A. YCASIANO ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.
Moises C. Nicomedes for Petitioner-Appellant.
Feliciano Jover Ledesma for Respondent-Appellee De Leon.
SYLLABUS
COURTS; MUNICIPAL COURT; JURISDICTION OVER DETAINER CASES; ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER; CASE AT BAR. — The complaint quoted in the opinion was held to include the essential elements of an unlawful detainer properly pertaining to the municipal court, since the main cause of action was the termination of the lease and the tenant’s refusal to vacate, coupled with the latter’s failure to paint and repair the premises in violation of the contract of lease.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
In the Court of First Instance of Manila, the petitioner Gregorio Nicomedes asked that the municipal court of said city be declared without jurisdiction to entertain the complaint therein filed against him of respondent Crispina de Leon. He asserted that the suit was not a detainer case, and on this issue the Honorable Dionisio de Leon, Judge, denied his prayer. Hence this appeal.
In said complaint, as amended, — which is the gist of this litigation — Crispina de Leon made the following allegations, after describing the parties to the controversy:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"2. That the herein plaintiff is the absolute owner of a two — story house or building bearing said No. 2103 Azcarraga, City of Manila, which was leased from month to month to the defendant for commercial purposes (Welding shop) at the agreed monthly rental of P300 a month since February 1, 1945, payable within the first ten days of each month;
3." ’x x x
"4. That since December 17, 1946, he was advised that beginning January, 1947, he would have to pay for the same the amount of P400 a month, . . .;
"5. That since January, 1947, and in violation of the contract of lease which renders the premises very insanitary and a fire hazard, the defendant has failed and refused to pay the rent of P400 a month, . . .;
"6. That in spite of repeated demands, he refused and failed to pay the rents and also vacate the premises thus causing damage to the plaintiff . . .;
"7. That the plaintiff also needs the house for her own use and to this effect the defendant was duly notified in writing;
"8. That the defendant has voluntarily terminated the contract of lease by offering only to pay for that part occupied by his shop instead of the entire premises as agreed upon."cralaw virtua1aw library
As it is unquestioned that detainer cases in Manila filed in accordance with Rule 72 of the Rules of Court properly pertain to the municipal court, this appeal would be unmeritorious if the above allegations make out a case for detainer under the Rules. We believe they do. The assertions therein set forth include the essential elements of an unlawful detainer, to wit: (a) ownership of the house by plaintiff; (b) contract of lease on a monthly basis at P300 per month since February, 1945; (c) notice on December 17, 1946, of owner’s decision to terminate the lease, unless the tenant agreed to pay P400 a month beginning January, 1947; and (d) failure or refusal of tenant to pay P400 and his retention of the premises. The prayer is what landlords usually demand: ouster from premises, rents and damages.
Appellant, however, insists that the matter is no ejectment suit, because the complaint attempts to collect P400, which was not the rent of P300 previously agreed upon, according to the very complaint on file. He invites attention to our ruling in Belmonte v. Marin, 42 Official Gazette, No. 10, p. 2416 that, "The lessor may, under article 1569 of the Civil Code, judicially dispossess the lessee for ’default in the payment of price agreed upon.’ But where such default is based on the fact that the rent sought to be collected is not that agreed upon, an action for ejectment will not lie."cralaw virtua1aw library
However, the appellant will observe that there is no pronouncement in the above — mentioned precedent that the detainer litigation did not belong in the municipal court of Manila whence it originated. The above pronouncement referred to the substance of the controversy or the merits of the litigation — not to the form in which it is to be originally debated, which, under the statute, is the justice of the peace or municipal court.
The alleged failure of the tenant to paint and repair the premises may be considered as one additional reason why plaintiff refused to allow said tenant to continue resenting the building at P300 only. Her main cause of action was the termination of the lease and the tenant’s refusal to vacate. Anyway we held in Baguioro v. Barrios, L — 277, 43 Off. Gaz., 2031, that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In contracts of lease of a real estate, if the lessee violates the terms of the contract by his failure to pay the rent due or to comply with the conditions of the lease, and refuses to vacate or return the possession of the property leased to the lessor notwithstanding demand to do so, the action is illegal detainer if filed within one year from the demand."cralaw virtua1aw library
For the reasons herein — above explained, the appeal may not be sustained. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. With costs against the Appellant.
Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo and Padilla, JJ., concur.
In said complaint, as amended, — which is the gist of this litigation — Crispina de Leon made the following allegations, after describing the parties to the controversy:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"2. That the herein plaintiff is the absolute owner of a two — story house or building bearing said No. 2103 Azcarraga, City of Manila, which was leased from month to month to the defendant for commercial purposes (Welding shop) at the agreed monthly rental of P300 a month since February 1, 1945, payable within the first ten days of each month;
3." ’x x x
"4. That since December 17, 1946, he was advised that beginning January, 1947, he would have to pay for the same the amount of P400 a month, . . .;
"5. That since January, 1947, and in violation of the contract of lease which renders the premises very insanitary and a fire hazard, the defendant has failed and refused to pay the rent of P400 a month, . . .;
"6. That in spite of repeated demands, he refused and failed to pay the rents and also vacate the premises thus causing damage to the plaintiff . . .;
"7. That the plaintiff also needs the house for her own use and to this effect the defendant was duly notified in writing;
"8. That the defendant has voluntarily terminated the contract of lease by offering only to pay for that part occupied by his shop instead of the entire premises as agreed upon."cralaw virtua1aw library
As it is unquestioned that detainer cases in Manila filed in accordance with Rule 72 of the Rules of Court properly pertain to the municipal court, this appeal would be unmeritorious if the above allegations make out a case for detainer under the Rules. We believe they do. The assertions therein set forth include the essential elements of an unlawful detainer, to wit: (a) ownership of the house by plaintiff; (b) contract of lease on a monthly basis at P300 per month since February, 1945; (c) notice on December 17, 1946, of owner’s decision to terminate the lease, unless the tenant agreed to pay P400 a month beginning January, 1947; and (d) failure or refusal of tenant to pay P400 and his retention of the premises. The prayer is what landlords usually demand: ouster from premises, rents and damages.
Appellant, however, insists that the matter is no ejectment suit, because the complaint attempts to collect P400, which was not the rent of P300 previously agreed upon, according to the very complaint on file. He invites attention to our ruling in Belmonte v. Marin, 42 Official Gazette, No. 10, p. 2416 that, "The lessor may, under article 1569 of the Civil Code, judicially dispossess the lessee for ’default in the payment of price agreed upon.’ But where such default is based on the fact that the rent sought to be collected is not that agreed upon, an action for ejectment will not lie."cralaw virtua1aw library
However, the appellant will observe that there is no pronouncement in the above — mentioned precedent that the detainer litigation did not belong in the municipal court of Manila whence it originated. The above pronouncement referred to the substance of the controversy or the merits of the litigation — not to the form in which it is to be originally debated, which, under the statute, is the justice of the peace or municipal court.
The alleged failure of the tenant to paint and repair the premises may be considered as one additional reason why plaintiff refused to allow said tenant to continue resenting the building at P300 only. Her main cause of action was the termination of the lease and the tenant’s refusal to vacate. Anyway we held in Baguioro v. Barrios, L — 277, 43 Off. Gaz., 2031, that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In contracts of lease of a real estate, if the lessee violates the terms of the contract by his failure to pay the rent due or to comply with the conditions of the lease, and refuses to vacate or return the possession of the property leased to the lessor notwithstanding demand to do so, the action is illegal detainer if filed within one year from the demand."cralaw virtua1aw library
For the reasons herein — above explained, the appeal may not be sustained. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. With costs against the Appellant.
Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo and Padilla, JJ., concur.
