SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-15983            October 31, 1962

MAXIMO ACIERTO, GABRIEL ALEGRE, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, assisted by her husband ROBERTO LAPERAL, respondents-appellees,
CONSORCIA B. DAWAL represented by her attorney-in-fact JOE TUPA, intervenor-appellant.

F. A. Santiago, B. G. Tabros and J. G. Macapagal petitioners-appellants and intervenor-appellant.
Antonio Gonzales for respondents-appellees.

BENGZON, C.J.:chanrobles virtual law library

Appeal from an order of the Manila Court of First Instance which, denying petitioners' motion for continuance, declared their appeal from the Manila municipal court to have been abandoned.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In said inferior court, petitioner had sued respondents to compel acceptance of the monthly rentals for portions of respondents' land in Tondo, Manila, which the former occupied. They offered to deposit such rentals from December 1958 until the court shall have fixed a longer period for their verbal contracts of lease of such portions (which contracts were on a month-to-month basis).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Respondents had refused to accept such rentals because they desired to eject petitioners - and had so notified them - for the purpose of constructing on the land their own building, the plans of which had been prepared. Accordingly, they answered praying for ejectment and other allied remedies.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The municipal court, after hearing, ordered petitioners to vacate the premises and to pay monthly rents at the specified rate from December, 1958 until actual vacation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After perfection of their appeal from such order, the Manila court of first instance set the case for hearing on June 2, 1959. However, on May 29, 1959, their counsel filed a motion for postponement. And on June 2 neither counsel nor petitioners appeared. The court denied the request for postponement and consequently declared the appeal abandoned for failure to appear. Reconsideration of said order having been refused, petitioners took this appeal, raising three issues, two of which have already been resolved by this Court in Acierto vs. Laperal, G.R. No. L-15966, April 29, 1960.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The sole question now remaining is whether petitioners' motion for postponement should have been granted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bearing in mind the adverse party's apparently well founded claim that the postponement was a mere dilatory expedient to prolong the tenants' possession of the premises, we find, under the circumstances, no inclination to impute abuse of discretion in the refusal to postpone. Furthermore, the alleged reason for postponement was counsel's previously scheduled trial in Castillejos, Zambales. And yet there were no supporting papers to prove this ground, the motion not being, additionally, under oath. 1 Such motion was not even scheduled for submission to the court before the day set for trial; and on such day none appeared for petitioners, evidently (but erroneously) on the assumption that postponement would be ordered. 2 And petitioners' motion for reconsideration - which was, in effect, a motion for relief - attached no affidavit of merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Indeed, petitioners do not exhibit any meritorious defense against respondents' legitimate action for rejectment. Their lease contracts with respondents were from month to month. Necessarily, the contracts expired at the end of every monthly 3 without need of special demand. 4 But because petitioners had occupied the premises for more than a year, respondents gave them more than three months' notice to vacate. This was not unreasonable in the circumstances.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the appealed order should be affirmed, and it is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

¹ Sec. 3, Rule 26.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

² Vaswani vs. Tarachand, G.R. No. L-15800, Dec. 29, 1960; Ortube vs. Asuncion, G.R. No. L-15813, Dec. 29, 1960.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

³ Art. 1687, New Civil Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

⁴ Estrella vs. Sangalang, 76 Phil. 108; Buhay vs. Cobarrubias, 76 Phil. 213; Villanueva vs. Canlas, 77 Phil. 381.