Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > May 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-30369 May 29, 1970 - SATURNINO A. TANHUECO v. ANDRES AGUILAR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-30369. May 29, 1970.]

SATURNINO A. TANHUECO, Petitioner, v. HON. ANDRES AGUILAR, Presiding Judge, Branch II, Court of First Instance of Pampanga, ROSARIO SORIANO VDA. DE GUIAO, ET AL., Respondents.

Quasha, Asperilla, Blanco, Zafra & Tayag for Petitioner.

Filemon Cajator for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; SURVIVAL OF ACTIONS; ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR THE WITHHOLDING OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY. — In a case of ejectment of unlawful detainer, the main issue is possession of the property to which the right to recover damages for the withholding of such possession after the right thereto has terminated is only incidental; the rents accrued and unpaid are simply the measure for the determination of such damages. The action for ejectment itself is not abated by the death of the defendant, but must continue until final judgment, in which the question of damages must be adjudicated. The fact that the occupants of the tenement subject of the action vacated the same during the pendency of the case on appeal does not divest the recoverable damages of their character as an incident in the main action and convert them into simple claims for money which must be prosecuted against the estate in the administration proceedings. The issue concerning the illegality of the defendant’s possession is still alive, and upon its resolution depends the corrollary issue of whether, and how much, damages may be recovered.

2. ID.; ID.; DAMAGES RESULTING FROM UNLAWFUL DETAINER CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE. — During the pendency of the appeal from an ejectment case, the defendant died and his heirs were substituted as parties. Meantime the new defendants vacated the property. Thereupon, they moved to dismiss the case upon the ground that the remaining issue has been reduced to a mere money claim for money, which cannot be maintained against the heirs of deceased defendant, and that the jurisdiction belongs to the corresponding probate court. HELD: If defendants’ act of vacating the building subject of the case be construed as abandonment of their appeal, then the judgment appealed from would acquire the character of finality, and thus preclude the necessity of filing the claim for unpaid rentals before the probate court.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This petition for review by certiorari is directed against the order issued by respondent Judge on November 18, 1968, in its Civil Case No. 3128. The case has been submitted for decision with neither answer nor brief having been filed by the respondents.

The petitioner’s statement of the case and of the facts is uncontroverted, and hence merely reproduced herein, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. On 18 June 1964 petitioner filed with the City Court of Angeles City a complaint for unlawful detainer against Julian Guiao, now deceased, praying that the latter be ordered to vacate the building being leased by him from the former and to pay the rentals in arrears from March 1964 at the rate of P400.00 monthly.

"2. To said complaint Julian Guiao filed his answer on 23 June 1964 and amended answer on 4 June 1965, alleging as defenses that petitioner did not introduce certain repairs on the leased premises and that said Julian Guiao did not deal with petitioner, and putting up a counterclaim for damages against the latter.

"3. On 17 February 1967 the City Court rendered its Decision ordering said Julian Guiao to vacate the leased premises and to pay the rentals in arrears from March 1964 with interest.

"4. On 3 March 1967 Julian Guiao appealed from said Decision to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, putting up the required supersedeas bond in the amount of P15,732.00 covering the unpaid rentals plus interest; the case was docketed in the Court of First Instance as Civil Case No. 3128.

"5. On 18 November 1967 Julian Guiao died.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"6. On 18 December 1967 petitioner filed a motion with the Court of First Instance praying that Julian Guiao’s counsel, Atty. Filemon Cajator, be ordered to furnish the Court the names and addresses of the legal representatives and/or heirs of said deceased so that they could be substituted as parties-defendants.

"7. On 27 December 1967 Atty. Cajator filed a "MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION," alleging the death of Julian Guiao and stating the names and addresses of his heirs and praying that the latter be substituted as parties-defendants.

"8. On 6 February 1968 the respondent Judge issued an Order ordering the substitution of the other respondents in lieu of deceased Julian Guiao as parties-defendants.

"9. On 11 March 1968 the new defendants vacated the leased premises.

"10. On 14 June 1968 the pre-trial in Civil Case No. 3128 was held.

"11. On 24 June 1968 respondents filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that all rentals that accrued during the pendency of the appeal in the Court of First Instance had been paid, that what remain to be litigated are the unpaid rentals that accrued during the pendency of the case in the City Court, that consequently the remaining issue has been reduced to a mere claim for money, that the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction in Civil Case No. 3128 to hear and decide a claim for money, and that jurisdiction belongs to the corresponding probate court.

"12. On 22 July 1968 petitioner filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss, stating that respondents were estopped from seeking dismissal, having previously filed a motion for substitution which was granted by the Court, and that the claim involved is not mere claim for money but is in the nature of damages arising from the unlawful withholding of the possession of real property.

"13. On 18 November 1968 the respondent judge issued an Order, a copy of which is embodied in this brief as an appendix, dismissing the case on the ground that an action for unpaid rentals, which is a claim for a sum of money, cannot be maintained against the heirs of a deceased defendant; a copy of said Order was received by undersigned counsel on 5 December 1968." chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

x       x       x


The following facts are undisputed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The rentals from March 1964 up to February 1967, in the amount of P15,732.00 (including interest), which are covered by a supersedeas bond, remain unpaid.

"2. The rentals from March 1967 up to October 1967 were deposited with the Clerk of the Court of First Instance and later withdrawn by petitioner upon orders of the Court.

"3. The rentals for the period 1 November 1967 to 18 November 1967, when Julian Guiao died, remained unpaid.

"4. The rentals from 19 November 1967 to 11 March 1968, when respondents vacated the premises, were paid by respondents directly to petitioner.

"5. Up to the present time, no settlement proceedings has been instituted in court over the estate of Julian Guiao."cralaw virtua1aw library

The principal issue is whether or not the unpaid rentals for the period from March 1964 to February 1967 (which are covered by a supersedeas bond) and those for the period from November 1 to November 18, 1967 (on which latter date Julian Guiao died) are "money claims" within the meaning of Section 21 of Rule 3, which provides that "when the action is for recovery of money, debt or interest therewith, and the defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in these rules." The reference is to the corresponding testate or intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased, wherein all his creditors may appear and file their claims so that the same may be paid proportionately out of the said estate.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

Section 1 of Rule 87 states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator; but actions to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be commenced against him."cralaw virtua1aw library

If the unpaid rentals in question here are "money claims" under the foregoing rules, they do not survive, but must be presented against the estate in the probate court. However, in a case of ejectment, or unlawful detainer, the main issue is possession of the property, to which the right to recover damages for the withholding of such possession after the right thereto has terminated is only incidental; and the rents accrued and unpaid are simply the measure for the determination of such damages. The action for ejectment itself is not abated by the death of the defendant, but must continue until final judgment, in which the question of damages must be adjudicated. The fact that the occupants of the tenement subject of the action vacated the same during the pendency of the case on appeal does not divest the recoverable damages of their character as an incident in the main action and convert them into simple claims for money which must be prosecuted against the estate in the administration proceeding. The issue concerning the illegality of the defendant’s possession is still alive, and upon its resolution depends the corollary issue of whether, and how much, damages may be recovered.

On the other hand, if the respondents’ act of vacating the building subject of the case be construed as abandonment of their appeal, then the judgment appealed from would acquire the character of finality, and thus preclude the necessity of filing the claim for unpaid rentals before the probate court.

In view of the foregoing, the order complained of is set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, with costs against private respondents.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J .B.Li, Dizon, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., is on leave.




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-1970 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29155 May 13, 1970 - UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24995 May 27, 1970 - REPUBLIC COMMODITIES CORPORATION v. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27344 May 28, 1970 - MAXIMA B. ARCOS, ET AL. v. JULIAN ARDALES

  • G.R. No. L-27704 May 28, 1970 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. RAPAEL MISON, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27832 May 28, 1970 - CARLOS V. MATUTE v. JOSE S. MATUTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27610 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO EMPEÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970 - SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24456 May 28, 1970 - LINO VICTORINO, ET AL. v. HONORIA LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25906 May 28, 1970 - PEDRO D. DIOQUINO v. FEDERICO LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26931 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORADOR S. PINGOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27022 May 28, 1970 - RADIOWEALTH TRADING CORPORATION v. AIDA L. ABASTILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-25147 May 29, 1970 - ANGELINA MAQUILING v. MONSERRAT UMADHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25326 May 29, 1970 - IGMIDIO HIDALGO, ET AL. v. POLICARPIO HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21576 May 29, 1970 - MUNICIPALITY OF PAETE v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22439 May 29, 1970 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23560 May 29, 1970 - MARIA CONSUELO IGNACIO v. PASTOR MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24592 May 29, 1970 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24781 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26632 May 29, 1970 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26970 May 29, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26890-92 May 29, 1970 - NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27124 May 29, 1970 - FRANCISCO COLMENARES v. ARTURO P. VILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27493 May 29, 1970 - SAN BEDA COLLEGE v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-27830 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONG DIN CHU

  • G.R. No. L-29116 May 29, 1970 - JUAN B. ESPE v. CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29138 May 29, 1970 - ELENA CONTRERAS v. CESAR J. MACARAIG

  • G.R. No. L-29306 May 29, 1970 - CONSUELO S. GONZALES-PRECILLA v. JAIME ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30369 May 29, 1970 - SATURNINO A. TANHUECO v. ANDRES AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26901 May 29, 1970 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21727 May 29, 1970 - CRISPINA SALAZAR v. GUILLERMO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970 - VICENTE URIARTE v. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26600 May 29, 1970 - EMILIANO PIELAGO, ET AL. v. RECAREDO ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26629 May 29, 1970 - NGO DY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-27816 May 29, 1970 - FEDERICO AGUILAR v. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 - MARCELO LANDINGIN, ET AL. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19835 May 29, 1970 - WILFREDO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20604 May 29, 1970 - EDUARDO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21644 May 29, 1970 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. PILAR BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25352 May 29, 1970 - JOSE MARIA SALVADOR, ET AL. v. ROSENDO FRIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25803 May 29, 1970 - LUZ PICAR, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26838 May 29, 1970 - TOMAS BESA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27126 May 29, 1970 - LOU C. LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27585 May 29, 1970 - PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28074 May 29, 1970 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. CASIANO SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29132 May 29, 1970 - JOSE YAP JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31135 May 29, 1970 - DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. v. JOSE A. ALIGAEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31558 May 29, 1970 - RASID LUCMAN v. MACACUNA DIMAPURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26681 May 29, 1970 - JOSE CALACDAY, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27562 May 29, 1970 - ROMULO A. YARCIA v. CITY OF BAGUIO