MARIA MACABENTA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. EMMA H. VER-REYES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. EMMA H. VER-REYES, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

On July 31, 1957 the spouses Emma H. Ver-Reyes and Ramon Reyes filed
an action for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Court of Manila
against Maximo Umali and Maria Macabenta to recover from them the
possession of a parcel of land located at Tiago St., Sampaloc, Manila
(Civil Case No. 48160). The main defenses interposed by said defendants
were that under the contract of lease entered into between them, on the
one hand, and plaintiffs’ parents, on the other, they could occupy the
property in question as long as they wanted, provided they paid the
rent promptly, and that plaintiffs’ parents had given them an option to
buy the property. After due trial upon these issues, the Municipal
Court of Manila found that the property in question was inherited by
the plaintiff Emma H. Ver-Reyes from her parents; that the only
contract of lease entered into by and between the latter and the
defendants was oral and on a month-to-month basis; that the defendants
had not paid rents for several months when the action was filed; that
plaintiffs had notified defendants to vacate the property for the
additional reason that they intended to build thereon their own house.
The judgment of the court was as follows:

“In view of the foregoing consideration, the Court
renders decision for the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant Maximo
Umali to pay the amount of P80.00 as rentals in arrears up to January
31, 1956, and defendant Maria Macabenta the amount of P140.00 as
rentals in arrears up to January 1957; plus the sum of P10.00 every
month for Umali from February 1956, until he finally vacates the place:
and Macabenta the sum of P20.00 a month beginning February 1957 up to
the time she finally vacates the place, plus an attorney’s fees in the
amount of P50.00 and the costs of the suit.”

There is no question that the above decision became executory and
that thereafter, upon motion of the prevailing party, the Municipal
Court of Manila caused to be issued the corresponding writ of
execution, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:

“Now therefore, you are hereby commanded to cause
the defendant aforesaid to forthwith remove said premises, and that the
plaintiff aforesaid have restitution of the same; also that you collect
the rents due as stated hereinabove, and upon failure of said defendant
levy upon his goods and chattels for the payment of the said due and
back rents as judgment ordered and the above-mentioned costs aside of
your lawful fees for this execution, and collect from him the rent due
at the rate of P10.00 for Umali and P20.00 for Macabenta a month from
the 1st day of February, 1957 until the day of his vacating said
premises, damages in the sum of P50.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs
hereinabove-mentioned, and costs of this execution and service hereof,
in due form of law.”

To prevent the execution of the above-mentioned writ, petitioner
Maria Macabenta filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a
verified petition for prohibition claiming that the same was materially
at variance with the decision rendered in the case and that, therefore,
in issuing the writ, the respondent judge, Ramon H. Ycasiano, had acted
without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. Upon her petition a writ of preliminary injunction was
issued to restrain enforcement of the writ complained of.

After answer to the petition for prohibition had been filed by the
respondents, the lower court tried the case and thereafter found that
there was “a clear variance” between the decision of the Municipal
Court in Civil Case No. 48160 and the writ of execution issued therein.
As a result, it rendered judgment granting the writ prayed for in the
petition. Hence, this appeal.

It is beyond question that Civil Case No. 48160 was for unlawful
detainer and that plaintiffs therein prayed for judgment ordering the
defendants: to vacate the property subject-matter of the action; to
remove their improvements therefrom; to surrender possession of the
property to plaintiffs, and to pay the latter the monthly rents due and
unpaid, besides attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

While it is true that the dispositive part of the decision rendered
by Judge Ycasiano did not provide with the desired clarity and
definiteness that the defendants in the case should vacate the property
in question and deliver its possession to the plaintiffs, it is
likewise undeniable that the granting of such relief is clearly
inferable from that portion of the dispositive part requiring herein
petitioner to pay the rents in arrears as well as “the sum of P20.00 a
month beginning February 1957, up to the time she finally vacates the place”
(Italics supplied). That the decision had really such meaning and was
so intended was subsequently shown by the fact that the respondent
judge issued the writ of execution complained of.

Having arrived at the conclusion that there is no material variance
between the decision rendered by the Municipal Court in Civil Case No.
48160 and the writ of execution issued therein, judgment is hereby
rendered reversing the decision appealed from and dismissing the
petition for prohibition, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.