TAN SI KIOK, ANG KIM AND ALEJANDRO SINTERO, PETITIONERS, VS. MACARIO TIACHO, RESPONDENT.

This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals,
which rendered judgment modifying that of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
and ordering the defendants-appellants to vacate immediately the premises in
litigation, and to pay the plaintiff-appellee the sum of P140 a month, from May,
1945 up to the time the actual surrender to the plaintiff of the possession of
the premises.

The appellants or petitioners, in their petition for certiorari and brief
submitted to this Court, contend that, taking as a basis the finding of facts of
the decision of the Court of Appeals to the effect that “in 1941 * * * Alejandro
Sintero, [one of the appellants] occupied the house in question at a monthly
rental of P63,” the lower court erred in concluding that the sum of P140 is a
reasonable monthly rent to be paid by the appellants to the appellee, from May,
1945 up to the time the appellants actually surrender the possession of the
premises to the appellee, because it is contrary to the Emergency Civilian
Administrative Order No. 12, which provides that “the charge and increase of
rental of houses and buildings in the City of Greater Manila to more than 25 per
cent of the rental prevailing as of the last semester of the year 1941 is
prohibited.”

Assuming, without deciding, that said Emergency Civilian Administrator’s
order had the effect and force of a law, the Court of Appeals did not err in not
taking into consideration said order in deciding the present case. That order
does not fix and impose such rentals irrespective of the will of the parties. It
only limits the amount of the rental which the tenant may be required to pay, or
gives the tenant the right not to pay a rental in excess of the limitation
provided for in that order. But the tenant may waive that right by paying a
rental in excess thereof, or by failing to set it up as a defense or to raise
that question in his appeal from the Court of First Instance to the Court of
Appeals.

In the present case the Court of Appeals did not pass upon the question now
raised by the appellants in this Court, because in the assignment of errors of
the appellants filed with the Court of Appeals appellants did not raise that
question or rely on said Order. The only assignment made by the appellant
relating to rentals is that “the trial court erred in finding that the
reasonable rent of 611 Asuncion should be P140 a month.” Therefore this Supreme
Court cannot now pass upon that question.

As to reasonableness of the rent of P140 adjudged by the appellate court, the
attorneys for the appellants contend that the reasonableness of the rental found
by the Court of Appeals, which is based on the fact that the same amount of rent
was paid by tenants of contiguous apartments of the same building, is erroneous,
because “neither decision nor record yields the finding or claim that the house
herein involved and the houses contiguous to it are equal or even nearly equal
in size and such a fact cannot be left to assumption.” This contention raises
question of fact which this Court can not pass upon in this appeal.

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from
is affirmed.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Pablo, Hilado, Bengzon, Briones,
and Tuason, JJ., concur.

---

PERFECTO, J.:

We agree that the decision of the Court of Appeals as to the reasonableness
of the rents adjudged should not be disturbed, but we deem it necessary to write
this opinion because of our stand that it is necessary that the question as to
the validity or invalidity of the undated Order No. 12, issued by the Emergency
Control Administrator Tomas Confesor and published in May, 1945, Vol. 41, No.
42, of the Official Gazette, be decided once and for all.

In our opinion all
doubts on the question must be dispelled, as said order has been and is being
invoked in several cases. In our opinion the order is null and void. Being in
the nature of a legislative enactment, the officer who issued it had absolutely
no power or authority to issue it. The Constitution has vested in Congress the
exclusive power to enact laws, with limited participation granted to the
President. The order, being violative of the Constitution, is null and void
ab initio.