Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > March 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 1202 March 31, 1906 - FRANCISCO SAEZ CO-TIONGCO v. CO-QUING-CO

006 Phil 46:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1202. March 31, 1906. ]

FRANCISCO SAEZ CO-TIONGCO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CO-QUING-CO, Defendant-Appellant.

Federico Olbes, for Appellant.

E. C. Smith, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ACTION; FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. — In actions for forcible entry and detainer brought in the court of the justice of the peace after the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions was enacted, it is necessary that the plaintiff give the thirty day’s notice required by the provisions of section 80 of said Code.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This action was brought to recover rent under a contract of lease between the plaintiff and defendant, and also to recover the possession of the property. The contract of lease was executed and delivered on the 6th day of March, 1894. The period of the lease was ten years, to be counted from January 1, 1894. The action was brought on the 30th day of April, 1902, in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of Manila, and an judgment was rendered by said justice of the peace in favor of the defendant upon the ground that the plaintiff had not given the thirty day’s notice to said tenant in accordance with provisions of section 80 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila.

On the 29th day of August, 1902, the plaintiff presented in the Court of First Instance in the city of Manila an amended complaint. Paragraph 3 of said complaint alleges —

"That the defendant has neglected, failed, and refused to comply with the conditions of said lease, in that he, the said defendant, did not pay the rent due plaintiff, as provided by article (b) of said lease, which stipulates that the sum of 50 pesos per month must be paid by the lessor at his house within the first ten days of the next month following."cralaw virtua1aw library

"That the defendant herein neglected, failed, and refused to pay said rent for the month of March, 1902, during said month, or within the first ten days of the next month following, as provided by said lease, and in truth and in fact did not offer to pay said rent for the month of March aforesaid until after the beginning of suit by this plaintiff against said defendant in said justice’s court on the 30th day of April, 1902, for possession of said premises."cralaw virtua1aw library

The evidence discloses the fact that the rent for the month of March was not paid, either during the month or within the first ten days of the next month following. There was a default, therefore, in the payment of the rent on the 10th day of April, 1902. This action for the rent and recovery of possession of the property was brought on the 30th day of April of the same year. There is no proof that any notice whatever was given to the defendant in accordance with the provisions of section 80 of the new Code of Procedure. The plaintiff claims that the provisions of said section 80 do not apply to the contract in this case for the reason that the contract was made long before the time when said section 80 took effect; that the law in force at the time the contract was made is the law which governs an action upon this particular contract.

Article 1569 of the Civil Code provides that —

"The lessor may judicially dispossess the lessee for any of the following causes:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"First. Upon the expiration of the conventional period, or the one fixed for the duration of leases in articles 1577 and 1581.

"Second. Default in the payment of the price agreed upon."cralaw virtua1aw library

Article 1555 of the Civil Code provides that —

"The lessee is obliged: First. To pay the price of the lease in the manner agreed upon."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the provisions of the law in force at the time of the making of this lease the lessor might request the rescission of the lease and judicial possession of the property immediately upon default in payment of the price agreed upon.

Section 80 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions is part provides that —

"The owner of land or of a building occupied by a tenant may likewise obtain restitution or possession of the premises, and recover rents due and damages in the manner next hereinafter provided, when the tenant for thirty days after due demand for payment of rent due for the occupancy of the premises shall have refused or neglected to make payment of the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

The question presented in this case is, Was it necessary for the landlord to give the tenant thirty days’ notice before bringing his action in the court of the justice of the peace to obtain possession of the property for justice of the peace to obtain possession of the property for a breach of any term of the contract of lease? We answer this question in the affirmative.

The plaintiff in this case might have brought his action of ejectment in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, which action, so far as the law is concerned, might have been brought immediately upon a breach of the terms of the lease. In this case certainly his rights would not have been affected by the provisions of section 80, above quoted. Section 80 only applies to actions of forcible entry and detainer brought in the court of the justice of the peace.

The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed and the cause dismissed, with costs to the plaintiff, without prejudice to the plaintiff to commence a new action to obtain judicial possession of the property. After the expiration of twenty days let final judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the cause be remanded to the lower court for proper procedure.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, 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






March-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1904 March 3, 1906 - FRANCISCO GONZALEZ QUIROS v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    005 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 2763 March 3, 1906 - W.L. WRIGHT v. ALFRED F. SMITH, ET AL.

    005 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 1451 March 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AURELIO TOLENTINO

    005 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 2500 March 8, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MARIANO TUASON, ET AL.

    005 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. 2645 March 8, 1906 - FRANCISCA CABREROS v. VICTORINO PROSPERO

    005 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 1928 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 2430 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LEANDRO VILLARINO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 2434 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO BOAC

    005 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 1974 March 15, 1906 - CATHOLIC CHURCH v. A. W. HASTINGS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 2020 March 15, 1906 - GERMANN & CO. v. LUIS R. YANGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 2452 March 15, 1906 - MATILDE BALLESTER v. GONZALO LEGASPI

    005 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 2600 March 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    005 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 3139 March 15, 1906 - ALEJANDRO SANTOS v. CELESTINO VILLAFUERTE

    005 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 2116 March 16, 1906 - BERNARDINO CACNIO v. LAZARO BAENS

    005 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 2327 March 17, 1906 - LUIS PEREZ SAMANILLO v. W.A. WHALEY, ET AL.

    005 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 2457 March 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO DADACAY

    006 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 2575 March 17, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO

    006 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 2570 March 21, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO ASUNCION

    006 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 2292 March 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO

    006 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 2721 March 22, 1906 - RAFAEL MOLINA v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    006 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 2603 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    006 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 2695 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO YSIP

    006 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 2733 March 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS ARCEO

    006 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 1458 March 29, 1906 - MAX L. FORNOW v. J. C. HOFFMEISTER

    006 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 2735 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO REYES

    006 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 2969 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO J. REYES

    006 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. 1009 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO SANTA MARIA

    006 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 1202 March 31, 1906 - FRANCISCO SAEZ CO-TIONGCO v. CO-QUING-CO

    006 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 1922 March 31, 1906 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

    006 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 2336 March 31, 1906 - JOAQUIN PELLICENA CAMACHO v. LEONCIO GONZALEZ LIQUETE

    006 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 2676 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO HORCA

    006 Phil 52