SEVERINO MANOTOK, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, vs. MILAGROS S. LEGASPI AND EMILIO S. LEGASPI, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

PERFECTO, J.:

On September 27, 1946, appellee prayed for the excution of the lower court’s
judgment ordering the appellants to vacate the premises in litigation by reason
of the letter’s failure to pay or deposit the rent for August, 1946, on or
before September 10, invoking to said effect section 9 of Rule 72.

Appellants opposed the petition, alleging that it is not under oath and not
supported by any affidavit, that an agreement has been entered into between
appellee’s attorney and appellant Emilio S. Legaspi to the effect that, after
appeal to the Supreme Court has been perfected, the rents will be paid directly
to appellee’s attorney or a collector shall be sent to said appellant’s
residence, and that in accordance with said agreement, payments were made as
appear in the following receipts issued by appellee’s attorney, Exhibit A, B,
B-l, C, and C-l:

“Recibi de los esposos Milagros de Legaspi y Emilio Legaspi la cantidad de
ciento cinco pesos (P105) correspondientes a los alquileres de los meses de
enero, febrero y marzo de 1946 por la finca que ocupa de mi cliente el Sr.
Severino Manotok en la calle Avenida Rizal No. 2134, esquina Cellejon Ongsiako,
en lugar de depositarlo en el expediente No. 71397 del juzgado de primera
instancia de Manila, habiendo dado seguridades dichos esposos de que los
alquileres correspondientes desde el 1. de agosto de 1945 hasta diciembre de
1945 se han depositado por los mismos y autorizando dichos esposos al
infrascrito a retirar dichos depositos; entendiendose que mientras tanto dure la
apelacion de dichos esposos ante la Corte Suprema, los alquileres seran pagados
directamente por dichos esposos al Sr. Manotok directamente si el juzgado
deniega la mocion de ejecucion de la sentencia.

“Manila, Filipinas, 8 de abril de 1946.” (Exhibit A.)

“Recibi de los esposos Sres. Milagros y Emilio Legaspi la cantidad de treinta
y cinco pesos (P35) como alquileres que deberia depositar en el asunto civil No.
71397 del juzgado de primera instancia de Manila correspondientes al mes de
abril de 1946 y que por convenio se paga directamente a los demandantes mientras
dicho asunto este en tramites de apelacion ante la Corte Suprema, para evitar la
ejecucion entretanto.

“Manila, Pilipinas, junio 4, 1946.” (Exhibit B.)

“Resibi de los esposos Sres. Milagros y Emilio Legaspi la cantidad de treinta
cinco pesos (P35) como alquileres que deberia depositar en el asunto civil No.
71397 del juzgado de primera instancia de Manila correspondiente al mes de mayo
de 1946 y que por convenio se paga directamente a los demandantes mientras dicho
asunto este en tramites de apelacion ante la Corte Supreme, para evitar la
ejecucion entretanto.

“Manila, Filipinas, junio 29, 1946.” (Exhibit B-l.)

“Recibi de los esposos Sres. Milagros y Emilio Legaspi la cantidad de treinta
cinco pesos (P35) como alquileres que deberia depositar en el asunto civil No.
71397 del juzgado de primera instancia de Manila correspondiente al mes de junio
de 1946, y que por convenio se paga directamente a los demandantes mientras
dicho asunto este en tramites de apelacion ante la Corte Suprema, para evitar la
ejecucion entretanto.

“Manila, Filipinas, 14 de agosto de 1946.” (Exhibit C.)

“Recibi de los esposos Milagros y Emilio Legaspi la cantidad trienta y cinco
pesos (P35) como alquileres que deberian depositar en el asunto civil No. 71397
del juzgado de primera instancia de Manila correspondiente al mes de junio de
1946, y que por convenio se paga directamente al demandante Sr. Severino Manotok
mientras dicho asunto este en tramites de apelacion ante la Corte Suprema, para
evitar la ejecucion entretanto.

“Manila, Fillipinas, iigosto 19, 1946.” (Exhibit C-1.)

The rent for August, 1946, was deposited with the clerk of this court on
September 30, 1946, after appellee’s petition had been filed.

From receipt Exhibit A, it appears that it was issued for rents in arrears
for the months of January, February, and March, 1946, that it was agreed by the
parties that the rents deposited by defendants for August to December, 1945, may
be withdrawn by the appellee from the court where they were deposited, and that
the several payments made for rents, as appear in Exhibit B, B-l, C, and C-1,
were made, although out of the time fixed by sections 8 and 9 of Rule 72 with
the express purpose of staying the execution of the lower court’s judgment.

Although under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 72, the landlord, in whose favor a
decision for ejectment has been rendered by the lower court, is entitled to ask
for the execution of the lower court’s judgment if the tenant fails to pay or
deposit, on or before the 10th day of each calendar month, the rent for the
preceding month, there is nothing to preclude him from, waiving his right. In
the present case it unmistakably appears that appellee had waived the right by
allowing appellants to pay the rents out of time and by accepting the belated
payments for the purpose of staying the execution of the judgment.

He is now estopped from asking the execution because appellants did not pay
or deposit the rent for August, 1946, on or before September 10, but only on the
30th of said month. Appellee agreed to tolerate a reasonable delay in the
payment of current rents and can not now repudiate the agreement by unilateral
denouncement. What action will be taken should delay happen to be unjustifiable
and unreasonable, quære. Petition denied.

Moran, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla, and
Tuason, JJ., concur.

Paras and Hilado, JJ., concur in the result.