Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > December 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22022 December 26, 1967 - EMILIANO T. RAMIREZ v. JOSE SY CHIT:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22022. December 26, 1967.]

EMILIANO T. RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE SY CHIT, Defendant-Appellant.

Alberto O. Villaroza, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jordan Techico and Aviado & Aranda for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EJECTMENT; EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL. — The extended period granted to defendant under Art. 1687 of the Civil Code was not absolute, but carried the condition that current rentals be paid. At all events, the alleged prematurity of the order of execution had become moot, considering that the execution was carried out after the decision of the Municipal Court had been affirmed by the Court of First Instance on appeal.

2. ID.; ART. 1687 CIVIL CODE. — Art. 1687 of the Civil Code does not change the character of original action where the action is for ejectment and when defendant invokes Art. 1687 of the Civil Code, the Municipal Court does not lose its jurisdiction over the case, as the exercise of the power given to the court in said articles does not contemplate a separate action for that purposes. The power may be exercised as an incident in the action for ejectment itself and by the court having jurisdiction over it. Otherwise, its summary character would be defeated.

3. ID.; GRANT OF DAILY DAMAGES FOR DELAY ILLEGAL. — It is error for the trial court to hold defendant liable for payment of P25.00 a day for delay in vacating the leased premises, as the same is without basis in law. The damages recoverable under Sec. 1 of Rule 70 are those which correspond to the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the property, which in this case is the agreed monthly rental of P230.00.

4. ID.; AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES. — Where the defendant unjustifiably continued the litigation even up to the Supreme Court and has put the plaintiff to unnecessary expense and trouble to protect his interest, the award of P200.00 as attorney’s fees finds sanction in Art. 2208 of the Civil Code.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Appeal by defendant from the order dated June 10, 1963 as well as from the decision dated August 12, 1963 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the first granting plaintiff’s motion for execution, pending appeal, of the judgment of the Municipal Court in its Civil Case No. 102319, and the second affirming the said judgment.

Plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land located at Claro M. Recto Avenue, City of Manila, a portion of which, with an area of 188.30 square meters, more or less, had been leased to defendant since 1946 at a monthly rental of P230.00, payable in advance within the first five (5) days of every month. The lease agreement was not reduced to writing. In two separate written notices, one on June 15, 1962 and the other on the following September 4, plaintiff informed defendant of his intention to terminate the lease contract for the reason that he was going to construct a three-storey building on the land. Defendant then had constructed a building thereon, with an assessed value of P6,000.00, and thereafter continued introducing other improvements although he was not personally occupying the same.

Defendant failed to heed the demand to vacate, and so plaintiff, on September 23, 1962, commenced an action for ejectment (Civil Case No. 102319) in the Municipal Court (now City Court) of Manila. Defendant interposed, as special defense, Article 1687 of the Civil Code and asked that the court fix the period of the lease. After due trial the court, on December 17, 1962, rendered a decision the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby fixes June 30, 1963 as the date when the contract of lease shall terminate between the parties. The defendant and all persons claiming title under him are hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the accruing rentals at the agreed rate; to vacate the premises located at Nos. 420-424 Claro M. Recto Avenue, Manila after June 30, 1963; to pay also the sum of P200.00 as and for attorney’s fees, plus the costs of the suit.

Should the defendant fail to vacate the premises after the said date, he shall be held liable to pay the plaintiff the sum of P25.00 a day for every day of delay as damages until he finally vacates the premises, in addition to the agreed current rental that may accrue.

Defendant’s counterclaim is hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit."cralaw virtua1aw library

Not satisfied with the above decision, defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance. During the pendency of the appeal plaintiff moved for execution, alleging the failure of the defendant to pay the rents for the months of April and May 1963. On June 10, 1963 the trial court granted the motion and ordered execution of the municipal court’s decision. Defendant moved to reconsider, alleging that he tendered payment to plaintiff’s lawyer of the rents for the said months on May 23, 1963, but that it was not accepted. At the hearing of the motion the parties submitted the case for decision on the basis of a stipulation of facts. On August 12, 1963 the trial Court rendered judgment as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby rendered affirming the appealed decision in toto; and ordering the immediate execution of the same conformably to the order dated June 10, 1963, which is hereby reaffirmed. The defendant shall pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

In this appeal appellant avers that the trial court erred: (1) in issuing the order of execution dated June 10, 1963; (2) in not finding that the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action; (3) in not holding that the appellant was entitled to a longer duration of the lease; (4) in sentencing appellant to pay damages of P25.00 a day, in addition to the monthly rents; and (5) in awarding appellee attorney’s fees and costs, instead of doing so in favor of Appellant.

The order of execution dated June 10, 1963 is assailed on the ground that it was premature, since the decision of the municipal court sought to be executed fixed the duration of the lease up to June 30, 1963 and therefore was not yet executory. Appellant’s submission on this point is without merit. The extended period granted to him pursuant to Article 1687 of the Civil Code was not absolute, but carried the condition that he should pay the current rentals. The decision of the Municipal Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To give defendant’s sub-lessee enough time to move out from the premises, this Court fixes June 30, 1963 as the date when the contract of lease shall terminate, provided defendant pays the current rental." (Emphasis supplied)

In any event, the question has become moot, because execution was carried out, not on June 10, 1963, nor even on June 10, 1963, but after the confirmatory decision of the Court of First Instance on August 12, 1963.

On the second error assigned, appellant contends that the Municipal Court should have dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, because the special defense raised by him invoking Article 1687 of the Civil Code was a new matter which transformed the action into one for the fixing of the duration of the lease, which pertains exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

The contention is untenable. The action is for ejectment, as made out by the allegations in the complaint. The exercise of the power given to the court in Article 1687, to extend the period of the lease when the defendant has been in occupancy of the premises for more than a year, does not contemplate a separate action for that purpose. That power may be exercised as an incident in the action for ejectment itself and by the court having jurisdiction over it. Otherwise the summary character of this action would be defeated.

Appellant says that he should have been granted a longer period of at least two years. The power of the court in this regard is discretionary, and there is no evidence that the Municipal Court abused its discretion here. Appellant did not need the disputed premises for himself, for as stated in the decision appealed from he was not personally occupying the same but had it subleased to others, from whom he was deriving no little income. The period given to him was quite reasonable, being more than a year from the time the first notice to vacate was served upon him.

The trial court held defendant liable "to pay plaintiff the sum of P25.00 a day for every day of delay as damages until he finally vacates the premises, in addition to the agreed current rental that may accrue." This is an error. The damages recoverable by the plaintiff under section 1, Rule 70 (formerly Rule 72) are those which correspond to the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the property, which in this case is the agreed monthly rent of P230.00. The award, therefore, of P25.00 as damages for every day of delay in addition to the agreed monthly rental is without basis in law.

On the question of attorney’s fees in the sum of P200.00 awarded to plaintiff, the lower court did not err. Defendant continued the litigation unjustifiably, even up to this Court after he had been granted a reasonable extension of the lease. Plaintiff has been put to unnecessary expense and trouble to protect his interest, and under the circumstances the award finds sanction in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with the modification that the award of damages is set aside. Costs against Appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, 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






December-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15829 December 4, 1967 - ROMAN R. SANTOS v. FLORENCIO MORENO

  • G.R. No. L-24717 December 4, 1967 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28315 December 8, 1967 - AMBROCIO JANAIRO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28358 December 8, 1967 - JULIAN G. GINETE v. UBALDO Y. ARCANGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18857 December 11, 1967 - CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. ESTEBAN M. SADANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21520 December 11, 1967 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21616 December 11, 1967 - GERTRUDES F. CUAYCONG, ET AL. v. LUIS D. CUAYCONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21849 December 11, 1967 - LOURDES VDA. DE MAGALONA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22325 December 11, 1967 - CORAZON M. ESPINO v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22471 December 11, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOLOMON A. LIZARDO

  • G.R. No. L-23508 December 11, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLY P. CORTEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23817 December 11, 1967 - FRANCISCA LAZO v. J.M. TUASON & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24221 December 11, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24521 December 11, 1967 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS v. RAMON A. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25245 December 11, 1967 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAURICIO ALILLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28348 December 15, 1967 - BERNARDINO ABES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21441 December 15, 1967 - RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 546 December 18, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINADOR F. FLORES v. LUIS R. LOZADA

  • G.R. No. L-17587 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE

  • G.R. No. L-22585 December 18, 1967 - NICANOR B. PAGKALINAWAN v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22753 December 18, 1967 - JESUS RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23220 December 18, 1967 - CIRIACO INGCO v. BENEDICTO M. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23699 December 18, 1967 - JUANITO CHAN v. GREGORIO B. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-21422 December 18, 1967 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27826 December 18, 1967 - PASTORA GASPAY, ET AL. v. CESAR SANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24510 & L-24525 December 18, 1967 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL. v. JESUS P. MORFE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23191 December 19, 1967 - GERONIMO G, ESGUERRA, ET AL. v. FELIPE M. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22269 December 20, 1967 - AMANDO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23661 December 20, 1967 - JOSE MANANGOL BARTOLOME, ET AL. v. JUSTO BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. L-24572 December 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22265 December 22, 1967 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CO.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22512 & L-22514 December 22, 1967 - ANDRES E. LAZARO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21150 December 26, 1967 - AMADO CAYANAN, ET AL. v. LEON DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21577 December 26, 1967 - REMEDIOS C. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22022 December 26, 1967 - EMILIANO T. RAMIREZ v. JOSE SY CHIT

  • G.R. No. L-23135 December 26, 1967 - MARIANO SUMILANG v. SATURNINA RAMAGOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23764 December 26, 1967 - JUAN SUMERARIZ v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23887 December 26, 1967 - AGO TIMBER CORPORATION v. JESUS S. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24200 December 26, 1967 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26947 December 26, 1967 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28359 December 26, 1967 - ABDULLAH SANGKI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28395 December 26, 1967 - LILIA PEÑA, ET AL. v. DAMASO S. TENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22517 December 26, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO VERZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23986 December 26, 1967 - ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. JACINTO CALLANTA

  • G.R. No. L-28349 December 28, 1967 - CONSUELO V. CALO, ET AL. v. MANUEL L. ENAGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28206 December 28, 1967 - PRISCILO G. INTING v. ZOILA L. CLARIN

  • G.R. No. L-18649 December 29, 1967 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20156 December 29, 1967 - IN RE: MANUEL TO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 September 29, 1967 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-21293 December 29, 1967 - REGINO G. AGUIZAP v. EUGENIO BASILIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21641 December 29, 1967 - MANUEL IBAVIOSA v. BENIGNO TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22057 December 29, 1967 - ROMUALDO MONTESINO, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO RULLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23405 December 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BATO

  • G.R. No. L-23773-74 December 29, 1967 - FRANCISCO PINEDA, ET AL. v. PASTOR DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-28328 December 29, 1967 - NICANOR C. IBUNA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28396 December 29, 1967 - AGRIPINO DEMAFILES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20894 December 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER M. PERETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22169 December 29, 1967 - SERGIO ALABAT, ET AL. v. TORIBIA TANDOG VDA. DE ALABAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21309 December 29, 1967 - BERNARDO PICARDAL, ET AL. v. CENON LLADAS

  • G.R. No. L-23504 December 29, 1967 - ALBERTO DE JOYA v. JUAN T. DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23886 December 29, 1967 - FRANCISCO PERIQUET v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28340 December 29, 1967 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, ET AL.