G.R. No. L-23699. December 18, 1967
JUANITO CHAN, PETITIONER, VS. GREGORIO B. MONTEJO, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ZAMBOANGA CITY; AND JESUS VDA. DE MURGA, RESPONDENTS.
ANGELES, J.:
An original petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
to review an order of the respondent court, dated July 21, 1964, ordering the execution of the judgment
of the Municipal (now City) Court of Zamboanga City,
pending the appeal and before the trial of the case before the said respondent court.
On March 19, 1959,
Jesusa Vda. de Murga, herein private respondent, filed an action for
unlawful detainer before the Municipal Court of Zamboanga City against Juanito
Chan, petitioner herein, to recover the possession of two parcels of land, known as lots 36 and 38 of the
cadastral plan of Zamboanga City, which were leased
to the defendant for a term of ten(10) years from
January 31, 1949, as evidenced by a written contract of lease attached to the
complaint.
Upon the allegations in
the complaint and the answer, the bone of contention revolves around clause
“7” of the contract of lease which reads thus:
“7. That upon the expiration of the term of ten (10) years
above expressed, the said Jesusa Vda.
de Murga shall have the option to purchase the
building or buildings belonging and constructed by the said Juanito Chan, and the price of said building or buildings
shall be determined by three(3) commissioners, two of whom shall be appointed
by each of the parties, and the remaining commissioner to be appointed by
both. However, in the event that the
said Jesusa Vda. de Murga shall not exercise the right herein granted her for
any reason or cause, this contract of lease shall be automatically renewed but
the period for said renewal shall, however, be fixed and adjusted again by the
parties. It is agreed further that in
case of said renewal, the rental shall also be adjusted by the parties
depending on the business condition which shall then at that time prevail.”
It appears that on July 23,
1958, the plaintiff
sent a letter to the defendant expressing her intention to renew the contract
of lease based on an increase rental of P700.00 instead of P500.00 as stipulated in the contract of lease. Replying to the offer of the plaintiff, the
defendant said – “Much as I
am willing to consider the suggested
increase of rental, however, I would
like to please (plead) with you that, due to very poor business at present, I
may not be able to consider your
indicated increase.” On December 19, of the same year, the
plaintiff sent another letter to the
defendant inviting the latter to a
conference to discuss the
matter. So on January 15, 1959, the plaintiff, thru her representative, and
the defendant met at the office of attorney Fernando Blanco to discuss the
terms of a new contract of lease, more particularly as to the amount of the rent. The
parties, however, failed to come to an agreement. On January 19, 1959, the plaintiff again wrote the defendant
informing the latter that “she is waiving her right to exercise the
aforementioned option and offers a new rental of P100.00 more than the
prevailing, without signing a contract, or P200.00
more than the old rent with a five (5) year contract.” The defendant
having declined the offer of the plaintiff, the latter filed the present case
before the Municipal
Court of Zamboanga City.
After a trial of the
case, on February 12, 1964, the Municipal Judge rendered a decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
“x
x x judgment is
hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, sentencing the defendant to
immediately vacate and return the possession of lots 36 and 38, subject of the
present action, and removing therefrom all the
improvements introduced thereon by the defendant, to pay monthly rental of
P600.00 pesos from the month of February 1, 1959, up to the time he actually
and completely vacates and surrenders the possession of lots 36 and 38 to the
plaintiff due to the expiration of the period of lease fixed in the contract of
lease which was not renewed, Exhibit A, of the plaintiff; to pay attorney’s
fees of P500.00, and the costs.”
The defendant appealed
from the decision to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
City.
On July 9, 1964, and
before the trial of the case, the plaintiff filed a motion for execution of the
judgment of the Municipal Court alleging that, although the defendant had filed
a supersedeas bond to guarantee the payment of the
rentals fixed in the decision of the Municipal Court, said defendant, however,
“has failed and omitted to deposit the said difference of P100.00 monthly
within the first ten (10) days of each calendar month, x x x“; that is, the difference
between P500.00, the stipulated rental in the contract of lease, and P600.00
adjudged in the decision of the Municipal Court from February to July 1964.
The defendant opposed the motion, and alleged that the contract
of lease is “subject to the term of automatic renewal, and which under the
contract, the former (defendant) was to pay to the latter (plaintiff) the
monthly rental of P500.00, and which rent has been collected every month by the
plaintiff”, up to and including the month of July 1964.
In other words, admittedly, the defendant had paid to the
plaintiff the stipulated rental of P500.00 every month up to and including July
1964, when the motion for execution of the decision was filed in court. Admitted, likewise, is that the difference
between P500.00, stipulated rental, and P600.00 awarded in the decision, or the
sum of P100.00 every month, from February to July 1964, a total of P600.00, has
not been paid to the plaintiff or deposited in court on or before the 10th day
of each calendar month, from February to July 1964, although the amount of
P600.00 was deposited in court on July 10, 1964, by the defendant.
Acting on the motion for execution and the opposition thereto,
the court granted the motion, and ordered the execution of the judgment of the
Municipal Court. In the order, the court
said:
“That during the pendency of this
case before the Municipal Court, and when a compromise agreement was about to be
reached by the parties, the plaintiff pursuant to defendant’s plea, accepted
the P500.00 monthly rental due under the expired contract so that the same may
not accumulate to an unpayable proportions; x x x.
“While it is true that plaintiff has been collecting P500.00
as monthly rental yet it should be noted that the adjudged rental of the
Municipal Court is P600.00 monthly having found the contract of lease to have
expired and the defendant only deposited the sum of P600.00 on July 10, 1964
which amount represents the difference between the rents agreed in the expired
contract and the adjudged rental for the period covering February to July 1964. This failure on the part of the defendant to
deposit the adjudged rent in full is fatal and thus entitled the plaintiff to a perfect
right to secure immediate execution.”
The issue to be resolved upon the pleadings and the annexes
thereto is, whether the failure
of the defendant to pay or deposit the sum of P100.00 every month from February
to July 1964, although he had paid to the plaintiff P500.00 every month for the
same period of six months up to
and including July 1964, which stands for the stipulated rental under contract,
the execution of the judgment of the Municipal Court, as ordered by the
respondent Judge, is warranted
under the facts obtaining in the case.
Although under Sections 8
and 9 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, the landlord, in whose favor a decision for ejectment
has been rendered by the court, is entitled to ask for the execution of the
judgment if the
tenant fails to pay or deposit, on or before the 10th day of each calendar
month, the rent for the proceeding month, as determined in the decision, which
requirement is mandatory, however, there is nothing to preclude the judgment
creditor from waiving his right.
In the present case, the facts clearly show, as found by the respondent Judge,
that acceding to defendant’s plea, the plaintiff accepted the payments of the
monthly stipulated rental of P500.00 up to July 1964, without demanding the
payment of P100.00, which is the difference between the stipulated rental and
that fixed in the decision of the court.
The conduct of the plaintiff implicitly constitutes an acceptance of the
plea of the defendant to pay only the sum of P500.00 a month instead of P600.00 fixed in
the judgment, otherwise, the plaintiff would have raised a voice of protest and
would have asked the execution of the judgment immediately upon default. The permissible logical inference upon the
foregoing is,
that the plaintiff, by accepting the payment of P500.00 every month, the
stipulated rental from February to July 1964, without demanding the payment of
the difference of P100.00 every month therefrom, had
waived the right to demand payment of the full amount of the monthly rental as
fixed in the judgment, for the purpose of staying the execution thereof. And considering that the defendant had
deposited with the court the sum of P600.00 on July 10, 1964, to cover the unpaid difference of the
rental for the said period of six months, the plaintiff suffered no material
damage or prejudice in her rights. It is the
defendant who would stand to suffer irreparable damage and injury should the buildings
he had constructed on the land, which according to him is valued at no less
than P70, 000.00, would be demolished.
Under the special conditions of the case, the mantle of equity should be
extended to petitioner who, in good faith, had acted under the circumstances in
the manner indicated.
WHEREFORE, the writ is granted. The order complained of is set aside, and
the preliminary injunction heretofore issued is made permanent. Without costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.