G.R. No. L-1811. December 29, 1949
GREGORIO BALVERAN AND MERCEDES CABANA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, TEOFILA ZABALLERO VDA. DE UNSON ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
PARAS, J.:
Vda. de Unson and Amando Zaballero, instituted in the justice of the peace court
of Lucena, Tayabas, an action to eject the herein petitioners, Gregorio Balveran
and Mercedes Cabana, from the western portion of a house situated in the corner
of Zamora and Gardiner Streets, on the ground that the respondents needed the
same to establish a store therein. The petitioners set up the defense that they
are lessees of the premises paying a monthly rental of P75, and that the true
purpose of the action is to enable the respondents to lease the property to a
Chinaman at a higher rental. After trial, the justice of the peace court
rendered judgment in favor of the respondents and against the petitioners. The
latter appealed to the Court of First Instance of Tayabas which, after trial,
rendered judgment also in favor of the respondents, ordering the petitioners to
vacate the premises in question, to pay a monthly rental of P75 from May 15,
1945, and the sum of P100 as attorney’s fees, plus the costs. The petitioners
again appealed to the Court of Appeals which in turn affirmed the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Tayabas except as to the portion requiring the
petitioners to pay attorney’s fees.
The petitioners have elevated the case to this Court on appeal
by certiorari, contending that the use of the premises in question intended by
the respondents (to open a store) is not a ground for ejectment contemplated by
the Rental Law, Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, and
that although the petitioners themselves are using said premises both as a
dwelling and as a store (their lease is nonetheless protected by section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, which provides that
“Building used both as dwelling of the lessee and also as place of business of
the latter for home industries intended for the support of the family shall be
deemed included in the provisions of this Act.” It is unnecessary to pass upon
the contention of the petitioners because the period covered by the Rental Law
expired on October 15, 1949 (Estrada vs. Caseda, G. R. No. L-1560, decided on
October 25, 1949), and the same, therefore, is now of no avail to the
petitioners.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed,
and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioners.
Moran, C.J.,
Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres,
JJ., concur.