PILAR G. VDA. DE KRAUT, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MANUEL LONTOK, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Mathias Kraut, deceased husband of appellant Pilar G. de Kraut, owned several
apartment houses situated at Carpena St., Quiapo, Manila, one of which was
leased to appellee Manuel Lontok at a monthly rental of P40.00. After the last
war, Kraut raised the rentals to P60.00, and as the tenants refused to pay the
increased rental, Kraut filed ejectment proceedings in the Municipal Court of
Manila against them, including appellee. The cases, however, were amicably
settled, the tenants having agreed to pay the increased rentals, except Lontok
who was allowed to continue paying P40.00 monthly.

Upon the death of Kraut, appellant commenced Civil Case No. 21154 in the same
court for unlawful detainer against several of her tenants, including Lontok.
The defendants defaulted, and from the decision sentencing them to vacate the
premises and to pay appellant the sum of P60.00 as reasonable monthly rental
until they vacate the premises, they appealed to the Court at First Instance of
Manila (Case No. 18658). Upon their failure to deposit in full the rents pending
appeal, Mrs. Kraut moved for the immediate execution of the judgment of the
municipal court, but her motion was denied. Thereupon she brought the matter on
mandamus to Us (G. R. No. L-6900), and on April 29, 1956, we rendered judgment
ordering the immediate execution of the aforesaid decision agairist all the
defendants, except Lontok, who was allowed to make up for the difference in his
monthly rental deposits, as he had been depositing the sum of P40.00 only as
monthly rental instead of P60.00 as adjudged, by the municipal court.

On September 6, 1957, the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the
case “without prejudice” for failure to prosecute. All the monthly rental
deposits were withdrawn by appellant.

From October 1957, Lontok resumed paying appellant the original rental of
P40.00 until February 17, 1959 when the latter commenced an action (Civil Case
No. 40638) in the Municipal Court of Manila against him for ejectment and
recovery of the difference in rental amounting to P20.00 per month from October
1957. Lontok lost and appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. After
trial the court dismissed the case and ordered appellant tor reimburse appellee
the sum of P1,180.00 representing the total amount of monthly rental deposits in
excess of P40.00 made by the latter in Civil Case No. 18658 of the Court of
First Instance of Manila. Hence this appeal.

The first question to be determined is whether appellant had a cause of
action for an unlawful detainer against appellee.

In this connection it appears that prior to the commencement of this action
in the Municipal Court of Manila, appellant made the required demand upon
appellee for the payment of the “unpaid rentals”, meaning the P20.00 monthly
difference between the rental of P60.00 demanded by appellant and the P40.00
paid monthly by appellee since October 1957. This, in our opinion, is clearly
equivalent to a demand for the payment of a monthly rental of P60.00.
Considering that appellee was occupying the premises in question on a month to
month basis, it can not be denied that appellant had the right to terminate the
lease at the end of any month. The contract between the parties herein must
therefore be deemed terminated upon appellee’s refusal to pay the P60.00 monthly
rental demanded by appellant which does not appear to be exorbitant.

The next question to be resolved is whether appellee is entitled to recover
from appellant the sum of P1,180.00 representing the total amount of monthly
rental deposits made by him in excess of the monthly rental of P40.00 which he
claims to be the rental he was under obligation to pay.

The resolution of the above issue depends upon the effect of the dismissal of
Civil Case No. 18658 by the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 6,
1957 on the ground of the therein plaintiff’s (appellant therein) failure to
prosecute.

Upon the perfection of an appeal from the decision of an inferior court in an
unlawful detainer case, assuming that other conditions required by Section 8 of
Rule 72, Rules of Court are complied with, the decision of said court is deemed
vacated, the case to be tried de novo in the Court of First Instance. Had
the order of the latter court of September 6, 1957 been a mere dismissal of the
appeal interposed by the defendant in the case, appellant’s contention that upon
the dismissal the decision of the inferior court was revived, might have some
merit. The fact is, however, that what the Court of First Instance dismissed was
the case itself. It is obvious, therefore, that thereafter there was
nothing left of Civil Case No. 18658 of the Court of First Instance of Manila
nor of the original action, namely, Civil Case No. 21154 of the Municipality
Court of the same city. In other words, the parties were taken back to the
situation obtaining since the detainer case instituted by appellant’s deceased
husband against appellee was amicably settled by allowing the latter to continue
paying the monthly rental of P40.00. As a result, appellee is entitled to
recover from appellant the difference between the rental deposits he had made at
the rate of P60.00 monthly, and this amount of P40.00 monthly. This situation,
however, ended when appellant made upon appellee the demand for, the payment of
a monthly rental of P60.00 by means of the letter of demand mentioned in the
additional stipulation of facts (Record on Appeal 16-17), the date of which
unfortunately is not given. From the date of such demand appellant is legally
entitled to a monthly rental of P60.00 until appellee actually vacates the
premises. In view of appellee’s refusal to pay said monthly rental, appellant
was entitled to terminate, as she did terminate, the contract of lease between
them. Consequently, the decision appealed from, in so far as it dismisses
appellant’s action, is reversed and another is hereby rendered ordering appellee
to vacate the premises subject matter of this action.

As the date of the demand mentioned heretofore is not available in this
record, the present case is ordered remanded to the lower court for further
proceedings in accordance with this decision for the purpose of determining the
rentals due from appellee to appellant, and the amount to be reimbursed, if any,
to the former.

Lastly, as it does not appear that this action is groundless and was
instituted maliciously, appellee is not entitled to recover any amount as
attorney’s fees.

Modified as above indicated, the decision appealed from is affirmed in all
other respects.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J, B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.