Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1946 > April 1946 Decisions > G.R. No. L-223 April 12, 1946 - SUSANO AMOR v. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ

076 Phil 487:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-223. April 12, 1946.]

SUSANO AMOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Ricardo Gonzalez Lloret for Appellant.

Jose Belmonte for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. EJECTMENT; JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL COURT AND COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; DATE OF ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION; CASE AT BAR. — The contention of counsel for appellant F. G. in his first assignment of error that the municipal court lacked original jurisdiction, and the court of first instance appellate jurisdiction, over this case because the cause of action, according to him, accrued more than one year prior to the commencement of the suit in the municipal court, is untenable. The court of first instance, in view of the evidence, found the facts alleged in the complaint to have been sufficiently proven, and consequently. gave judgment for the plaintiff. This necessarily includes the finding that the cause of action accrued about the month of March, 1945. On pages 6 and 7 of the record on appeal in this case there has been inserted by appellant’s own counsel the transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the hearing of this case before the court of first instance, from which we find the finding of said court to be correct. The original complaint having been filed on April 23, 1945 (Record on Appeal, pp. 1, 2), it is clear that the original suit was lodged only about one month after the accrual of the cause of action.


D E C I S I O N


HILADO, J.:


This is an ejectment case originally brought in the Municipal Court of Manila, later appealed to the Court of First Instance of said city, and lastly brought here on appeal by the defendant Francisco Gonzalez. The defendants in the municipal court were Shiu Che Kong (alias Tiu Tiong Iu) and Francisco Gonzalez. The municipal court ordered both defendants to restore to the plaintiff Susano Amor the house in question, No. 2248 (ground floor), Rizal Avenue, Manila, and to pay him the "rents" plus the costs.

The case having been appealed to the court of first instance, only the defendant Shiu Che Kong (alias Tiu Tiong Iu) filed an answer to the complaint. The defendant Francisco Gonzalez, having failed to do so, was declared in default.

The facts are: that the plaintiff is the owner of the house in litigation; that the defendant Shiu Che Kong (alias Tiu Tiong Iu) about the month of March, 1945, without the knowledge nor consent of the plaintiff, entered into a contract with his co-defendant Francisco Gonzalez whereby the latter purported to lease the house to the former at the rate of P900 a month, the first defendant having paid to the second the "rents" from March to July, 1945, inclusive, without said Francisco Gonzalez having the owner’s authority to let said house nor collect its rents; and that despite plaintiff’s demand on defendants to vacate or surrender the possession of the premises and to pay the back "rents", they have refused and continue to refuse to do so. The foregoing facts appear proven in the transcript copied on pages 6 and 7 of the record on appeal: but - the court of first instance declared that the "rent" of P900 a month was excessive and it therefore appraised the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the house at P140 a month, taking into account the circumstances of time and place where the house is located.

Before the court of first instance gave its decision of July 23, 1945, the defendant Shiu Che Kong (alias Tiu Tiong Iu) and the plaintiff stated to the court that they had arrived at an amicable settlement, without specifying the details thereof; but said court, in order to avoid that the parties again litigate the same questions, and without prejudice to any legal compromise which they might agree upon, gave its decision, condemning the defendants to restore to the plaintiff the house in question, No. 2248 (ground floor), Rizal Avenue, Manila; condemning the defendant Francisco Gonzalez to pay to the plaintiff the "rents" (which would more properly be called the reasonable value of the use and occupation of said house by reason of the absence of a contract of lease between the parties), at the rate of P140 a month, which said defendant had already collected from his co-defendant, and to reimburse to the latter the excess of what he had received from him from March to July, 1945, inclusive, plus legal interest; condemning the defendant Shiu Che Kong (alias Tiu Tiong Iu) to pay to the plaintiff the "rents" of said house at the indicated rate for the time elapsing after July, 1945 till complete restitution of the house to the plaintiff; ordering the defendant Gonzalez not to interfere with the possession and disposition of said house; and taxing the costs of both instances against the two defendants.

The contention of counsel for appellant Franeisco Gonzalez in his first assignment of error that the municipal court lacked original jurisdiction, and the court of first instance appellate jurisdiction, over this case because the beause of action, according to him, accrued more than one year prior to the commencement of the suit in the municipal court, is untenable. The court of first instance, in view of the evidence, found the facts alleged in the complaint to have been sufficiently proven, and consequently gave judgment for the plaintiff. This necessarily includes the finding that the cause of action accrued about the month of March, 1945. On pages 6 and 7 of the record on appeal in this case there has been inserted by appellant’s own counsel the transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the hearing of this case before the court of first instance, from which he find the finding of said court to be correct. The original complaint having been filed on April 23, 1945 (Record on Appeal, pp. 1, 2), it is clear that the original suit was lodged only about one month after the accrual of the cause of action.

It is clear, therefore, that the judgment appealed from is in accordance with the facts and the law, for which reason it should be, as it is hereby, affirmed with the costs in the three instances against the appellant. So ordered.

Ozaeta, De Joya, Perfecto and Bengzon, 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-1946 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-110 April 3, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO PAGKALIWANAGAN, ET AL

    076 Phil 457

  • Adm. Case No. 12 April 6, 1946 - JUSTO BAPTISTA v. CONSUELO CASTAÑEDA

    076 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-38 April 6, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL M. TANCHOCO

    076 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. L-119 April 10, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO GONZALES, ET AL.

    076 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-90 April 12, 1946 - SUSANO AMOR v. ELIZABETH KRUMMER, ET AL

    076 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-91 April 12, 1946 - SUSANO AMOR v. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ

    076 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-223 April 12, 1946 - SUSANO AMOR v. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ

    076 Phil 487

  • C.A. No. 50 April 13, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO BARRAQUIA

    076 Phil 490

  • C.A. No. 9320 April 13, 1946 - TIMOTEO ARROYO v. ANDREA AZUR

    076 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-84 April 15, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO PABELLA, ET AL.

    076 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-329 April 16, 1946 - VICENTE SOTTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    076 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. L-265 April 24, 1946 - ONG SU HAN v. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID

    076 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. L-93 & L-94 April 25, 1946 - LUCIA GOMEZ, ET AL. v. NG FAT, ET AL.

    076 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. L-172 April 25, 1946.

    PEDRO ENRIQUEZ y MARCOSA BORJA v. JOSEFA DE MERLE y MERLE

    076 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-410 April 25, 1946 - MAMERTA REYES v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    076 Phil 561

  • C.A. No. 482 April 25, 1946 - PEDRO C. RELATIVO v. SINFOROSA CASTRO, ET AL.

    076 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-86 April 26, 1946 - FERNANDO REYES v. PELAGIO LOPEZ

    076 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. L-163 April 27, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAXIMO APLEGIDO

    076 Phil 571

  • Adm. Case No. 34 April 29, 1946 - ENGRACIO OBEJERA, ET AL v. IGA SY

    076 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-83 April 29, 1946 - MAGDALENA VDA. DE LOPEZ, ET AL v. DANIEL CABAIES

    076 Phil 588

  • Adm. Case No. 7411 April 29, 1946 - MANILA MOTOR CO. v. FIDELITY & SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL.

    076 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. L-50 April 30, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. LUZ JOSE DE MARTINEZ

    076 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-133 April 30, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO S. DE LA CRUZ

    076 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-175 April 30, 1946 - DAMIAN IGNACIO v. ELIAS HILARIO, ET AL

    076 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-209 April 30, 1946 - G. VIOLA FERNANDO v. CRISANTO ARAGON

    076 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-351 April 30, 1946 - HANS J. SAMETH v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    076 Phil 613

  • Adm. Case No. 490 April 30, 1946 - SABINA LEJARZO, ET AL. v. ROSARIO CIAR

    076 Phil 623