THE CITY OF MANILA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VENANCIO BACAY AND FELICIANO BACAY, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Hon. E. Soriano, presiding, ordering Venancio Bacay and
Feliciano Bacay to vacate the parcels of land leased by them from the
City of Manila, as well as to pay the monthly rentals thereon until
they have vacated the properties.

The first case, (CFI Manila, No. 34638) originated with a complaint
filed against Venancio Bacay with the municipal court on January 10,
1957 containing the following material allegations: the agreed leasing
of the property at the rate of P4.90 monthly; failure of defendant to
pay rentals from May 1946 to March 1956; failure of the defendant to
vacate the land despite repeated demands made on him to do so; and a
request for a judgment for P49.00 representing back rentals.

The second case (CFI Manila, No. 34639) originated with a complaint
filed against Feliciano Bacay with the municipal court containing the
following allegations: that plaintiff and defendant entered into a
lease contract for the defendant to occupy a parcel of land with a
monthly rental of P6.80; that the defendant has been delinquent in the
payment of rentals from April 1956 to January 1959; and a prayer for
judgment for defendant to vacate the property and to pay the rentals
due.

Judgment having been rendered in both cases requiring defendants to
vacate the premises subject of the actions, defendants prosecuted this
appeal. It is urged by the appellants that the complaints in both cases
do not contain allegations to the effect that the premises are needed
by the City of Manila for its own use, and therefore evidence to prove
this point was erroneously admitted by the court over the objections of
the appellants. It is further argued that at the time of the trial
appellee admitted that defendants are up-to-date in the payment of
rentals. Therefore, it is argued by appellants, that plaintiff has no
cause of action.

An examination of the allegations of the complaint in the first
case, No. 34638, discloses that the only ground of plaintiff for
demanding the ejectment of defendant is the supposed failure of the
defendant to pay rentals which fact was found in the course of the
trial to be untrue because plaintiff admitted that defendant is
up-to-date in his payment of rentals. As the failure to pay the rentals
is the only ground upon which the action is based, according to the
complaint, the defendant’s appeal appears to merit favorable
consideration because the only ground for plaintiff’s request that
defendant vacate the premises is the Iatter,’s failure to pay the
rentals and this fact was not proved at the trial. It so happened,
however, that at the time of the trial plaintiff presented without
objection on the part of the defendant, a letter of demand Exhibit “A”
which reads as follows:

“In connection with your use and occupancy of the
city property (31.00 sq. m.) located at your above address, please be
informed that the said city lot is urgently needed by the city for the
use and occupancy by District No. 1, Compound of the Streets and
Bridges Division, Office of the City Engineer.

“In view
thereof and pursuant to the directive of His Honor, the Mayor, you are
requested to pay to this office within five (5) days from the receipt
hereof the amount of P24.50 representing back rentals and/or damages
thereon covering the period from April 1956 to August 1956, inclusive,
at the monthly rate of P4.9O and forthwith vacate the city lot
involved; otherwise, this office will be constrained to refer the
matter to the City Fiscal for the institution of proper legal action
against you for ejectment and collection of back rentals and/or damages
without further notice.”

In the other case, No. 34639, a similar letter addressed to the
defendant, written by the City Treasurer, was admitted without
objection on the part of defendant.

Both of the letters contain the statement that the lot subject of
the letter is urgently needed by the city for use and occupancy, and
besides request is made for the defendant to pay the rentals and
“vacate the city lot involved”.

The result of the admission of the said two exhibits without
objection on the part of the defendant is that said exhibits supplied
the defective allegations of the complaint in both cases and by the
admissions of said copies of the letters, the allegations of the
complaints were ipso facto amended by the inclusion of the
allegation in each case that the city needed the lot and that defendant
should forthwith vacate the same.

The objection to the decision appealed from can not therefore be sustained.
It is also argued in appellants’ brief that since the documents,
Exhibits “A” in both cases, had not been attached in the complaint
their admission and consideration should have been denied. This
argument is clearly without merit.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be. as it is hereby, affirmed with costs against the defendants-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

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