Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > April 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19761 April 30, 1964 - QUINTINA S. VDA. DE AMPIL, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19761. April 30, 1964.]

QUINTINA S. VDA. DE AMPIL, and DOMINGO BROTHERS, INC., Petitioners, v. THE HON. JUDGE CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, Branch XVI, Court of First Instance of Manila and VICENTE MANUEL, Respondents.

A. A. Roxas, for Petitioners.

E. Ro. Enverga for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Petitioners, Quintina S. Vda. de Ampil and Domingo Brothers, Inc., pray for a writ directing the respondent, Judge Carmelino S. Alvendia of the Court of First Instance of Manila to order the execution pending appeal of a decision of the Municipal Court directing respondent Vicente Manuel to vacate the premises held by him as lessee of petitioners.

At issue in this case is the time for making deposits of current rentals pending appeal in a forcible entry or detainer case. The decision of the Municipal Court (Annex D of the Petition) is, in terms, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This is an ejectment case where the judgment was appealed to the Court of First Instance which remanded the case to this Court for trial on the merits and allowed DOMINGO BROS., INC., co-plaintiffs.

From the evidence adduced by the parties, the Court believes and so holds that the defendant is in arrears in the payment of rent at the rate of P70.00 a month from April, 1958 up to the present and that due notice had been made upon the defendant by the plaintiff before filing of the complaint.

While defendant maintains that the house is owned by his deceased wife, not by him alone, yet it is the considered opinion of the Court that, considering his answer to the complaint, he is in estoppel at this stage of the proceedings to raise the question of propriety of the party defendant.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, ordering the latter and all persons claiming under him to vacate the premises referred to in the complaint; to pay the sum of P1,870.00 representing the rent in arrears from April 1, 1958 up to July, 1960, at the said rate of P70.00 a month and monthly thereafter, within the first five (5) days of each month, beginning August, 1960, at the said rate of P70.00 until defendant and all others claiming under him surrender possession of the premises in question unto plaintiff; plus the further sum of P100.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of this suit." (Emphasis supplied)

Pending Manuel’s appeal from the judgment above quoted in the Court of the respondent judge, the petitioners filed a motion averring that the appellant-lessee had failed to deposit the P70.00 monthly set by the lower court within the first five (5) days of each month, as ordered in the appealed judgment; wherefore, it was prayed that, as provided by Rule 72, section 8, of the Rules of Court, the judgment under appeal be executed as to the possession and the defendant- appellant ordered to vacate premises under litigation.

After hearing, the respondent judge found that the appellant had been making the monthly deposits exacted by the appealed judgment "within the first ten days of the month following that for which the deposit was made", and "it can not, therefore, be said that the defendant has failed to make the monthly deposit on time" (Annex F).

Reconsideration having been denied, petitioners resorted to this Court.

We think the order of the Court of First Instance is correct, there being no finding in the decision by the Municipal Court (Annex D) that the contract of lease required the monthly rent to be paid within the first five (5) days of each month. While the initial complaint (Annex A) did allege that defendant-appellant "agreed and undertook to pay a rental thereon at the rate of P70.00 per month to be paid in advance within the first five (5) days of every month", mere allegations do not satisfy the requirements of the Rule. Section 8 of Rule 72 expressly prescribes that the defendant-appellant should pay or deposit, during the pendency of the appeal, —

"the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, as found by the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court to exist, or in the absence of contract, he pays to the plaintiff or unto the Court, on or before the tenth day of each calendar month, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the absence of any finding as to the provisions of the lease contract by the Municipal Court, the monthly deposit may be made within the first ten (10) days of each succeeding month. It was so ruled by this Court, in Yu Phi Kim v. Ten Giok Yan, G.R. No. L-5441, Nov. 29, 1952, passing on this very issue;

"The words ‘in the absence of a contract’ covers not only the situation where there is no contract actually, but also where the judgment does not make findings as to the existence and/or terms of the contract. The amount required to be paid in such case being equivalent to the reasonable value of occupation.

In other words where the time for payment under the contract of lease is not specifically declared in the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court, the ten-day period must be followed. There is no desire or purpose to permit the Court of First Instance, in a motion like this, to go beyond the judgment receiving evidence as to the terms of the contract and the time of payment." (Kim v. Yan, Et Al., G. R. No. L-5441, Nov. 29, 1952). Emphasis ours."cralaw virtua1aw library

It follows that the portion of the decision of the Municipal Court requiring the appellant to deposit current rentals within the first five (5) days of each month is not controlling, there being no pronouncement that the contract calls for such payments. As ruled in the Kim v. Yan case (supra), section 8 of the Rules "requires as a condition sine qua non that the judgment shall make specific findings as to the existence and the terms of the contract. The words "as found by the judgment" are very material."

The apparently contrary ruling in Chung Ben v. Co Bun Kim, 51 Off. Gaz., 6197, was predicated on the failure of the appellant to dispute the terms of the contract, as averred by the landlord in his petition. But in the case now before us, the lessee explicitly avers "that the landlord in his petition. But in the case now before us, the lessee explicitly avers "that there is no specific contract providing for time of payment" (Answer, page 2, par. c).

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the writ prayed for is denied. Costs against petitioners.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes , Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16037 April 29, 1964 - MONCADA BIJON FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18120 April 29, 1964 - DALMACIO DADURAL, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19063 April 29, 1964 - JULIANA CALADIAO, ET AL v. MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS

  • G.R. No. L-19863 April 29, 1964 - NAT’L., DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19866 April 29, 1964 - DAVAO STEEL CORP. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14336 April 30, 1964 - LA TONDEÑA, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15975 April 30, 1964 - HEIRS of the DECEASED JUAN SINDIONG, ET AL v. COMMITTEE ON BURNT AREAS & IMPROVEMENTS OF CEBU,

    ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16147 April 30, 1964 - LUZON COMMODITIES CORP. v. AMOR and SAYO, , ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16391 April 30, 1964 - HECTOR MORENO v. MACARIO TANGONAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16483 April 30, 1964 - MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL v. PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-16520 April 30, 1964 - JUAN CABUNGCAL, ET AL. v. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-16986 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS SAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17438 April 30, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RITA LIM DE YU

  • G.R. No. L-17776 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. RAFAEL HUGANAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17917 April 30, 1964 - VICTORIO GUY CO CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17954 April 30, 1964 - TAN CHING v. HON. A. GERALDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18202 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERCIVAL GILO

  • G.R. No. L-18271 April 30, 1964 - FELIX V. ESPINO v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18784 April 30, 1964 - CITY OF MANILA, ET AL v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-18889-90 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. ANTONIO HERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18993 April 30, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19001 April 30, 1964 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19007 April 30, 1964 - PHIL. COAL MINER’S UNION v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. -19020 April 30, 1964 - ANTONIO M. SAMIA v. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19298 April 30, 1964 - EUGENIO S. DE GRACIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-19317 April 30, 1964 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MAXIMO S. SAVELLANO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19370 April 30, 1964 - GENARO PRADO v. APOLINARIO CALPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19383 April 30, 1964 - UNITED STATES LINES CO. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19589 April 30, 1964 - RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19624 April 30, 1964 - BARTOLOME PUZON v. HON. MANUEL P. BARCELONA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19628 April 30, 1964 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19759 April 30, 1964 - CONCEPCION MONTELIBANO, ET AL v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19760 April 30, 1964 - MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL. v. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19761 April 30, 1964 - QUINTINA S. VDA. DE AMPIL, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19767 April 30, 1964 - RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW), ET AL v. MADRlGAL & CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19896 April 30, 1964 - REMEDIOS LAYAG, ET AL. v. JUAN GERARDO

  • G.R. No. L-20044 April 30, 1964 - NATIONAL UNION OF RESTAURANT WORKERS (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.