Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > May 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24664 May 29, 1968 - CORAZON ALEGRE, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24664. May 29, 1968.]

CORAZON ALEGRE, ET AL., plaintiffs, MARCIANO BAO, RAFAEL ADELAN, SALUD LUALHATI, ELENA MORALES, PEDRO MARCELO, WILLIAM SAÑOSA, MILAGROS SANTIAGO, VIOLETA TAN, TOMAS IGNACIO, MARIANO SY, PAULINO FRANCISCO, BERNABE LOPEZ, JAMES TAN and CLARA BATALLER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, Defendant-Appellee.

Gil de Guzman, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Antonio Gonzales, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; LEASE; DURATION OF LEASE CONTRACT; RIGHT OF LESSEE TO DEMAND A LONGER TERM. — Even if their contracts were not for a fixed period, the law does not grant the lessees a positive right to demand a longer term for the lease. Article 1687 of the Civil Code vests in the court the authority, which it may exercise or not, to "fix a longer term." We have held that said extension may be sought by the tenant before, not after the termination of the lease.

2. ID.; RENTALS INCREASE BASED ON ASSESSED VALUE. — The city ordinance invoked by plaintiffs prohibits lessors or sublessors "from increasing the rentals to an amount in excess of ten (10%) per centum per annum of the assessed value of the building leased or subleased and the land on which the building stands." There is, however, no competent evidence on the assessed value of said building and land. Hence, the lower court had no means to ascertain, from the evidence on record, whether or not the increased rentals exceed the limit fixed in said ordinance, even if judicial cognizance thereof had been taken.

3. JUDGMENT; EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL; DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM AS COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER. — Plaintiffs assail the authority of said court to order said execution under section 10 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, upon the ground that this case is one for specific performance and consignation with damages, not a forcible entry and detainer case, to which said section applies. Even if plaintiffs’ theory were correct, it is untenable insofar as defendant’s counterclaim and crossclaim is concerned. It is substantially alleged in said pleading of the defendant that plaintiffs herein, as her former lessees, were unlawfully witholding from her the possession of her aforementioned land and buildings, after the expiration or termination of their right of possession thereto, and that said unlawful witholding was barely two (2) weeks at the time of the filing of said counterclaim or crossclaim. In other words, all elements to an unlawful detainer case, under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, were pleaded in defendant’s aforementioned counterclaim or cross-claim. Defendant manifestly intended the same to partake of the nature of a complaint for unlawful detainer, as evidenced by the fact that said pleading was verified, which is not necessary in ordinary actions.

4. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OF COURT. — Regardless, however, of defendant’s counterclaim or cross-claim, and even if we considered plaintiff’s complaint as characterizing this case as an ordinary action, the lower court had authority to order the execution of its decision, under Rule 39, section 2, of the Rules of Court, defendant’s motion for execution having been filed before the approval of plaintiffs’ record on appeal. Such approval did not divest the court of its jurisdiction to entertain said motion and grant the same.

5. PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM; COMPLAINT OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER AS COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM. — Neither must we overlook, however, that arising out of or being necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of plaintiffs’ complaint herein, defendant’s aforementioned counterclaim or cross-claim was a necessary one, which would have been barred, had she not set it up in the case at bar.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Direct appeal, on questions purely of law, taken by fourteen (14) of the original eighteen (18) plaintiffs herein, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing their complaint.

Defendant Victorina G. de Laperal is the owner of a number of apartment houses located at Vision Street corner Dimasalang Street and Aurora Boulevard, Manila. In the year 1964 and for about three (3) years prior thereto, plaintiffs herein occupied, as defendant’s tenants, distinct and separate apartments of said houses. On October 27, 1964, defendant notified plaintiffs that, effective January 1, 1965, they would have to pay the increased rentals specified in the notices respectively served upon them, and that, if not agreeable to said increase, they should vacate their respective premises. Plaintiffs were, however, unwilling, either to pay the increased rates of rentals, or to vacate their respective apartments. Instead, on January 5, 1965, they judicially consigned the amount of the old rentals and commenced the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Plaintiffs prayed that the defendant be ordered to receive the rentals at the old rates; that the duration of the lease contracts between the parties be fixed; and that the defendant be sentenced to pay damages.

In her answer, the defendant alleged that her contract with the plaintiffs is for a fixed term, on a month to month basis; that she is entitled to increase the rentals at the expiration of each month; and that, if the plaintiffs are unwilling to pay such increase, they should vacate the apartments occupied by them.

After appropriate proceedings, or on April 30, 1965, the lower court rendered judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, and sentencing them to vacate the premises respectively occupied by them, as well as to pay back rentals at the old rates, up to thirty (30) days from notice of said judgment, and, thereafter, at the increased rates, until they shall have vacated said premises, and the costs. On May 7, 1965, plaintiffs gave notice, which was amended on May 24, 1965, of their intention to appeal to the Supreme Court. On May 26, 1965, or prior to the approval of plaintiffs’ record on appeal, on May 29, 1965, defendant moved for the execution of said judgment, upon the ground that plaintiffs had failed to deposit the monthly rentals specified in the judgment. On May 29, 1965, the parties agreed in open court that plaintiffs be given up to June 14, 1965, to deposit said rentals; but, still the deposit was not made. Hence, on June 26, 1965, the lower court authorized the execution of its judgment, during the pendency of the appeal. Thereupon, or on June 30, 1965, plaintiffs moved with the Supreme Court, in this appeal, for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the execution of said judgment, but, we denied the motion.

In their brief, plaintiffs maintain that the lower court erred: 1) in allegedly deciding that the lease contract between the parties is for a definite period; 2) in failing to take judicial notice of Ordinance No. 4841, Series of 1963, of the City of Manila, and to hold that the increased rentals, sought to be collected by the defendant, exceed the limit fixed in said ordinance; 3) in dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint; and 4) in ordering the execution of the decision appealed from, during the pendency of the appeal.

Plaintiffs argue that, since the rentals agreed upon with the defendant were on a month to month basis, in consequence of which the lease is deemed to be monthly, the period of the lease is considered by law as not fixed. Based upon this premise and upon the fact that they had occupied defendant’s premises for over one year, plaintiffs conclude that the lower court erred in not fixing a longer term for the lease, pursuant to Article 1687 of our Civil Code.

This legal provision does not bear out plaintiffs’ pretense. Even if their contracts were not for a fixed period, the law does not grant the lessees a positive right to demand a longer term for the lease. Said Article 1687 vests in the court the authority, which it may exercise or not to "fix a longer term." Plaintiffs have not even tried to show that the lower court had abused its discretion in not extending the term for the lease. Moreover, we have held that said extension may be sought by the tenant before, not after the termination of the lease. 1 The case at bar was commenced, on January 5, 1965, or five (5) days after the expiration of the lease contract, pursuant to defendant’s notice to the plaintiffs dated October 27, 1964.

Upon the other hand, the city ordinance invoked by the plaintiffs prohibits lessors or sublessors "from increasing the rentals to an amount in excess of (10%) per centum per annum of the assessed value of the building leased or subleased and the land on which the building stands." There is, however, no competent evidence on the assessed value of said building and land. Hence, the lower court had no means to ascertain, from the evidence on record, whether or not the increased rentals exceed the limit fixed in said ordinance, even if judicial cognizance thereof had been taken.

In as much as plaintiffs’ objection to the decision appealed from is based upon the two (2) issues we have just found to be devoid of merit, it follows that said decision must be affirmed.

The last issue posed by the plaintiffs refers to the writ of execution of the decision appealed from, issued by the lower court during the pendency of the appeal. Plaintiffs assail the authority of said court to order said execution under Section 10 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, upon the ground that this case is one for specific performance and consignation with damages, not a forcible entry and detainer case, to which said section applies. Even if plaintiffs’ theory as regards the nature of this case were correct with respect to the cause of action set forth in their complaint, it is untenable insofar as defendant’s counterclaim or cross-claim is concerned. Indeed, it is substantially alleged in said pleading of the defendant that plaintiffs herein, as her former lessees, were unlawfully withholding from her the possession of her aforementioned land and buildings, after the expiration or termination of their right of possession thereto, and that said unlawful withholding was barely two (2) weeks at the time of the filing of said counterclaim or cross- claim, on January 15, 1965. In other words, all elements essential to an unlawful detainer case, under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, were pleaded in defendant’s aforementioned counterclaim or cross-claim. In fact, defendant manifestly intended the same to partake of the nature of a complaint for unlawful detainer, as evidenced by the fact that said pleading was verified, 2 which is not necessary in ordinary actions.

We are not unmindful of the fact that unlawful detainer cases may not be initiated in Courts of First Instance. Neither must we overlook, however, that, "arising out of" or being "necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject- matter" of plaintiffs’ complaint herein, defendant’s aforementioned counterclaim or cross-claim was a necessary one, which would have been barred, had she not set it up in the case at bar. 3 In fact, plaintiffs do not now contest the jurisdiction of the lower court over the subject-matter of said counterclaim or cross-claim or to grant the relief therein prayed for.

Inasmuch as plaintiffs had not deposited the amount fixed in the decision appealed from, it follows that the lower court has not erred in ordering the execution of said decision, pursuant to Section 10, in relation to Section 8 of the Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

Regardless, however, of defendant’s counterclaim or crossclaim, and even if we considered plaintiffs’ complaint as characterizing this case as an ordinary action, the lower court had authority to order the execution of its decision, under Rule 39, Section 2, of the Rules of Court, defendant’s motion for execution having been filed before the approval of plaintiffs’ record on appeal. Such approval did not divest the court of its jurisdiction to entertain said motion and grant the same, for:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . the approval given to the record on appeal filed by the petitioner in the court below was merely provisional; and that both the court and the parties understood that such approval was not final, since there was another question still pending, to wit, whether a writ of execution should be issued pending appeal. It is to be presumed that the court and the parties knew that if the court granted the writ of execution, its order had to be included in the records to be elevated to the appellate court (Rule 39, sec. 2) and hence, the record of appeal as it stood before the court acted on the motion for execution, could not be considered complete and definitive. . . That being the case, the court retained jurisdiction to resolve the motion for execution and to order it issued unless the appellant filed the corresponding supersedeas bond. The subsequent issuance of the writs of execution were mere implementations of the power thus reserved and consequently, it can not be said that the court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the same." 4 (Emphasis supplied.)

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiffs-appellants.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Prieto v. Santos, 98 Phil., 509.

2. Rule 70, Section 1, Rules of Court.

3. Rule 9, Section 4, Rules of Court.

4. Laurilla v. Uichangco, 104 Phil., 171. See, also, Alcober v. Garciano, L-24665, May 23, 1968.




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






May-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25668 May 2, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN JUGILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22005 May 3, 1968 - JESUSA LACSON VDA. DE ARROYO, ET AL. v. EL BEATERIO DEL SANTISSIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26065 May 3, 1968 - GERONIMO P. ZALDIVAR v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21743 May 4, 1968 - FEDERICO CAÑETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23458 May 4, 1968 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. NATIONAL SHIPYARDS EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24264 May 4, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19829 May 4, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COKENG

  • G.R. No. L-24538 May 4, 1968 - IN RE: PONCIANO B. FLORES v. ROSALINA SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 May 7, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25345 May 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO GARCELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24247 May 13, 1968 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ACTG. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-21583 and L-21591-92 May 20, 1968 - DANIEL BULANTE v. CHU LIANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23758 May 20, 1968 - MAXIMINA OYOD DE GARCES, ET AL. v. ESMERALDA BROCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24983 May 20, 1968 - FLORENTINO GENATO, ET AL. v. FELISA GENATO DE LORENZO

  • G.R. No. L-24560 May 21, 1968 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20952 May 22, 1968 - IN RE: CHUA UAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22250 May 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO BALAO

  • G.R. No. L-22320 May 22, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL. v. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23640 May 22, 1968 - REMEDIOS MALUPA VDA. DE LAYAG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24192 May 22, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25308 May 22, 1968 - ELISEO EGUIA DUMAPIG v. GERONIMO R. MARAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25819 May 22, 1968 - VITALIANO B. VALDES v. LUCIO C. GUTIERREZ, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27252 May 22, 1968 - FELIPE IMPERIAL v. ROMAN CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20891 May 23, 1968 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. ROMULO VISPERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24665 May 23, 1968 - TIBURCIO ALCOBER, ET AL. v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24805 May 23, 1968 - IN RE: YAP PUEY ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25165 May 23, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFUGIO DEVARAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23017 May 23, 1968 - LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DEL DANAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24173 May 23, 1968 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24410 May 23, 1968 - BERNARDA NAZAL v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22347 May 27, 1968 - FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22611 May 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22943 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: TEH SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23056 May 27, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24280 May 27, 1968 - EUNARIA B. VDA. DE GUILAS, ET AL. v. ANANIAS DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24564 May 27, 1968 - AMADO L. MENDOZA v. RODRIGUEZ & COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24581 May 27, 1968 - MIGUEL PEREZ RUBIO v. SAMUEL REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24772 May 27, 1968 - RUPERTO G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. FlLIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-24800 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: PIO NERIA v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-26077 May 27, 1968 - SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26797 May 27, 1968 - REYNALDO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. ARTURO JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27598 May 27, 1968 - ELISA MEDINA CUE v. PILAR DOLLA

  • G.R. No. L-24288 May 28, 1968 - LEONOR MANUEL CASTILLO UDAN v. QUIRICO C. AMON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24484 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON C. NARCISO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25942 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-25997 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA ANINO

  • G.R. No. L-27951 May 28, 1968 - PABLO C. SANIDAD v. CRESCENCIANO L. SAQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28955 May 28, 1968 - USO DAN AGUAM v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19867 May 29, 1968 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CALSONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20322 May 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22030 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO ROLDAN

  • G.R. No. L-22426 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PELAGIO CONDEMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23021 May 29, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARIANO RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24490 May 29, 1968 - CIRIACO LANDA v. FRANCISCO TOBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24664 May 29, 1968 - CORAZON ALEGRE, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24677 May 29, 1968 - YAP TECK SUY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25551 May 29, 1968 - IN RE: CHAN DE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26364 May 29, 1968 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ET AL.