PUAHAY LAO, PETITIONER, VS. DIMTOY SUAREZ AND ALEJANDRO SUAREZ, RESPONDENTS.

Certiorari
to review and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in its case
CA-30691-R.

The material antecedent and background facts, as disclosed by the
record are the following:

The spouses Alejandro Suarez and Dimtoy
T. Suarez had leased a parcel of land (Lots 1 and 2, Block TS-39-R) in Tulay, Jolo, Sulu,
covered by their Original Certificate of Title No. 108-TSA, to Puahay Lao, by a written contract of lease (attached to the
Stipulation of Facts).  The essential
provisions of the contract provided that (Rec. of Appeal, pp. 71 to 73) ?

“That the Lessors shall grant and
the Lessee shall accept a lease of a portion of the above described property
for an indefinite period of time under the following terms and conditions:

“(a)  That at the signing of this contract, the
Lessee shall start to construct on said portion mentioned above a two-story
building consisting of two (2) doors (ground floor) for store purposes and the
upper floor for residence at his own expense and for his own use and benefit;

“(b)  That Lessee, his heirs, assigns or successors
shall pay the Lessors, their heirs or assigns, a
monthly rental for the use of said portion of land in the sum of Fifty-Four
(P54.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency at the end of every month from the time
that the construction of the building commences;

x x x x x

“(g)  That in the event that Lessee will fail to pay
the rental for three (3) consecutive months, the amount due or that may be due
is demandable and in addition Lessee will pay Lessors
20% of the amount due as liquidated damages. 
Should the amount due be indorsed to an attorney for collection, Lessee
agrees to pay an additional sum of P500.00 for attorney’s fees;

x x x x x x

“(j)    That any violation of the terms and
conditions stipulated in this contract on the part of the Lessee, his heirs or assigns, shall be sufficient ground for termination of this
lease and the Lessee agrees to pay the sum of Six Hundred (P600.00) Pesos, as
liquidated damages in addition to Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos for attorney’s
fees.”

On December 14, 1961 the lessors filed
suit against the lessee in the Justice of the Peace Court of Jolo, averring non-payment of monthly rentals from July to
October 1960, amounting to P216.00; that for such reason plaintiffs had given
the lessee notices of termination of lease, on November 7 and 14, 1960; and
prayed for judgment to order the lessee to vacate, and pay unpaid rentals with
interest, P500.00 attorneys’ fees and P600.00 liquidated damages.  In answer, the defendant lessee denied
violating the contract and pleaded that he had tendered rentals due for
September and October, 1960, and upon refusal, consigned them in Court; that he
had every month thereafter consigned the rentals (for November and December) as
they fell due; and counterclaimed for damages. 
After trial the Court gave judgment for the plaintiffs, and the lessee
appealed to the Court of First Instance.

After, a motion to dismiss had been filed and denied, the lessee
filed an answer practically reiterating his original defenses, and pleading
consignation of rentals from October, 1960 to March 1961.  The Court of First Instance affirmed the
judgment of the Municipal Court upholding the lessors‘
right to rescind the lease, and recover the land leased.  It therefore sentenced the tenant to vacate,
pay the rentals due plus liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees.  The lessee resorted to the Court of
Appeals.  The latter once more affirmed,
and the case was finally brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

We find the appeal without merit.

Two points are urged by the appellant against the decisions of
the Courts below:

1)  That the landlords (appellees) could not eject the tenant under section 2,
Revised Rule of Court 70, unless

“the tenant
had failed to pay such rent or comply with such conditions (of the lease) for a
period of 15 days after demand therefor,” (sec.
2, Rule 70)

and no such
failure was chargeable to the lessee appellant, because he had deposited in
Court the overdue rentals on November
6, 1960;

2)  That the lease being
expressly for an indefinite period, the tenant had the right to continue in
possession so long as he paid the rentals on time.

On the first point, it should be adverted that the rentals were
payable at the end of every month, so that when appellant failed to pay the
rentals from July to October on the 30th of the latter month, the landlords hic
et nunc became entitled, under
paragraph g of the contract of lease (already quoted), to an additional 20% of
the sum due by way of liquidated damages. 
The Court of Appeals found that the tenant never tendered or consigned
in court these 20% damages, and his failure to do so was a breach that entitled
the lessors to rescind (more properly, to resolve)
the contract and terminate the lease, as expressly provided in paragraph j of
the contract.  In fact, even without such
stipulation, it would be the right of the landlords to terminate the lease
under Article 1673 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
paragraph 3, prescribing that the lessor may
judicially eject the lessee for violation of any of the conditions
agreed upon in the contract.  Hence, when
the lessors notified the lessee on November 7 and 14
that they were terminating the contract, they acted within their strict rights
(Avila vs. Veloso,
69 Phil. 357).  The lessors
were not in law required to bring first in action for rescission, but could ask
the court to do so and simultaneously seek the ejection of the lessee in a
single action for illegal detainer (Pamintuan vs. Tiglao, 53 Phil.
1).

The preceding discussion renders it unnecessary to consider the
issue predicated on the alleged indefinite duration of the lease.  Definite or indefinite, the lessors have the right to terminate the contract upon
violation of its terms or conditions. 
Parenthetically, it may be observed that in Singson
vs. Baldelomar, 77 Phil. 724 this Court rejected the
theory that a lease could continue for an indefinite term so long as the lessee
paid the rent, because then its continuance and fulfillment would depend solely
on the free and uncontrolled choice of the tenant between continuing to pay
rentals or not, thereby depriving the lessors of all
say in the matter; as it would be contrary to the spirit of Article 1256 of the
Civil Code of 1889 (Art. 1308 of the Civil Code of the Philippines) that
validity or compliance of contracts can not be left to the will of one of the
parties.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the judgments appealed from are
affirmed.  Costs
against appellant in all instances.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.