LEONOR VILLAMIN AND MANUEL A. SORTIJAS, PETITIONERS, VS. JUAN ECHIVERRI, JR., JUDGE ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, AS JUDGE OF BRANCH XXXIX OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA AND JUD…

This is an ejectment case.  The city court of Manila in its decision of
February 24, 1976 ordered Leonor Villamin
to vacate the apartment located at 440-B M.F. Jhocson
Street, Sampaloc, Manila and to pay the landlord,
Juan Echiverri, Jr., the sum of P165 a month from
January 1, 1975 until the premises are vacated plus P300 as attorney’s fees
(pp. 17-18, Rollo).

The decision was based on the ground that the rental for January, 1975, which was due and
payable within the first five days of the month, was not paid on time since the
money order for that rental was mailed only on February 3, 1975 while the money
order for the February rental was mailed only on February 24, 1975 (p. 16, Rollo).

Villamin appealed to the Court of First
Instance of Manila which in its decision of June 30, 1976 affirmed the city court’s judgment (p. 38, Rollo).  A copy of
that decision was received by her counsel
on July 27.  Three days later, she filed
a motion for reconsideration which was denied in the lower court’s order of August 9, 1976.

Villamin on August 21, 1976 filed in this Court the instant
petition for certiorari wherein she contends that the lower court
committed a grave abuse of discretion in affirming the city court’s
judgment.  She filed a memorandum in
support of her petition.  Echiverri, Jr. did not submit any memorandum.

In the city court Leonor Villamin testified that she and her husband had occupied
the apartment in question since May
29, 1967.  Her baby,
nephew and niece have been staying with her in that apartment.  In November, 1974 the landlord gave a verbal
notice that the monthly rental would be increased to P300.

When the owner’s representative came to collect the rental for
January, 1975, Leonor tendered in cash the stipulated
rental of P165 but it was rejected because the landlord wanted her to pay an
increased rental of P300.

So, Leonor had to send by registered
mail to the landlord the postal money orders covering the January and February
rentals in the amount of P165 a month (Exh. 2 and
3).  After Evangeline Echiverri
refused to accept the rental of P165, Leonor reported
the matter to the Department of Public Information.  Miguel R. Logarta,
supervisor of the Public Information Assistance Unit of Malacañang
Palace, advised her in a letter dated January 27, 1975 to “refrain from
participating in the proposed increase, in order to avoid a possible court
action” since Presidential Decree No. 20, “which prohibits such
increase, is still very much in operation and violation thereof is
punishable” under its provisions (Exh. 1, p. 19,
Record).

We hold that there was no valid ground for ejecting Leonor.  She had not
defaulted in the payment of the rentals for the apart­ment which she had
already occupied for more than seven years when the alleged delayed payment
occurred.  The lease had no fixed term.

Because the landlord refused to accept the payment of the rentals
in cash at the old rate, Leonor had to resort to the
expedient of mailing to the landlord the money orders covering the stipulated
rentals (Exhs. 2-A and 4-A).  The eviction was motivated by the desire to
charge increased rentals.

That was the contingency sought to be forestalled by Republic Act
No. 6359, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 20.  The decree froze the rentals not exceeding
P300 for dwelling units or for land on which another’s dwelling is
located.  It also prohibited the ejectment of tenants occupying such dwelling units or land
which had been leased for an indefinite period if the ground for ejectment is the expiration of the term fixed in articles
1682 and 1687 of the Civil Code.

The purpose is to protect persons in the lower income group who
cannot afford to acquire their own houses or residential lots from being forced
to pay high rentals.  That was the same
policy adopted after liberation in Emergency Civilian Administrative Order No.
12 and in Commonwealth Act No. 689 as amended by Republic Act No. 66. 
Note that the supposed injustice caused to the landlord by Presidential
Decree No. 20 has been remedied by Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.

WHEREFORE, the decisions of the city court and the Court
of First Instance are reversed and set aside and the com­plaint for ejectment is dismissed. 
Respondent Echiverri’s motion of October 26, 1982 for the withdrawal
of the rentals deposited in court is granted. 
No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Escolin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., no part.