GREGORIO NICOMEDES, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. RAMON A. YCASIANO ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

In the court of First Instance of Manila, the petitioner Gregorio Nicomedes
asked that the municipal court of said city be declared without jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint therein filed against him of respondent Crispina de
Leon. He asserted that the suit was not a detainer case, and on this issue the
Honorable Dionisio de Leon, Judge, denied his prayer. Hence this appeal.

In said complaint, as amended, — which is the gist of this litigation —
Crispina de Leon made the following allegations, after describing the parties to
the controversy:

“2. That the herein plaintiff is the absolute owner of a two-story house or
building bearing said Number 2103 Azcarraga, City of Manila, which was leased
from month to month to the defendant for commercial purposes (Welding shop) at
the agreed monthly rental of P300 a month since February 1, 1945, payable within
the first ten days of each month;

” ‘3. *          *           *           *           *           *
          *

“4. That since December 17. 1946, he was advised that beginning January,
1947, he would have to pay for the same the amount of P4OO a month, * * *;

“5. That since January, 1947, and in violation of the contract of lease which
renders the premises very insanitary and a fire hazard, the defendant has failed
and refused to pay the rent of P400 a month, * * *;

“6. That in spite of repeated demands, he refused and failed to pay the rents
and also vacate the premises thus causing damage to the plaintiff * * *;

“7. That the plaintiff also needs the house for her own use and to this
effect the defendant was duly notified in writing;

“8. That the defendant has voluntarily terminated the contract of lease by
offering only to pay for that .part occupied by his shop instead of the entire
premises as agreed upon.”

As it is unquestioned that detainer cases in Manila filed in accordance with
Rule 72 of the Rules of Court properly pertain to the municipal court, this
appeal would be unmeritorious if the above allegations make out a case for
detainer under the Rules. We believe they do. The assertions therein set forth
include the essential elements of an unlawful detainer, to wit: (a)
ownership of the house by plaintiff; (b) contract of lease on a monthly
basis at P300 per month since February, 1945; (c) notice on December
17, 1946, of owner’s decision to terminate the lease, unless the tenant agreed
to pay P400 a month beginning January, 1947; and (d) failure or refusal
of tenant to pay P400 and his retention of the premises. The prayer is what
landlords usually demand: ouster from premises, rents and damages.

Appellant, however, insists that the matter is no ejectment suit, because the
complaint attempts to collect P400, which was not the rent of P300 previously
agreed upon, according to the very complaint on file. He invites attention to
our ruling in Belmonte vs. Marin, 42 Official Gazette, No. 10, p. 2416 that,
“The lessor may, under article 1569 of the Civil Code, judicially disposses the
lessee for ‘default in the payment of price agreed upon.’ But where such default
is based on the fact that the rent sought to be collected is not that agreed
upon, an action for ejectment will not lie.”

However, the appellant will observe that there is no pronouncement in the
above-mentioned precedent that the detainer litigation did not belong in the
municipal court of Manila whence it originated. The above pronouncement
referred to the substance of the controversy or the merits of the litigation —
not to the form in which it is to be originally debated, which, under the
statute, is the justice of the peace or municipal court.

The alleged failure of the tenant to paint and repair the premises may be
considered as one additional reason why plaintiff refused to allow said tenant
to continue renting the building at P300 only. Her main cause of action was the
termination of the lease and the tenant’s refusal to vacate. Anyway we held in
Baguiro vs. Barrios, L-277,43 Off. Gaz., 2031, that:

“In contracts of lease of a real estate, if the lessee violates the terms of
the contract by his failure to pay the rent due or to comply with the conditions
of the lease, and refuses to vacate or return the possession of the property
leased to the lessor notwithstanding demand to do so, the action is illegal
detainer if filed within one year from the demand.”

For the reasons herein-above explained, the appeal may not be sustained. The
judgment of the lower court is affirmed. With costs against the
appellant.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, and Padilla, JJ., concur.