GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. DOLORES DE MESA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Appeal, on a question of law, from the decision
of the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 50702.

Plaintiff Gregorio Araneta, Inc., a
duly organized domestic corporation, is the owner of the premises loca­ted at 1030
Vermont St., Malate, Manila, which it leased to
defendant Dolores de Mesa on a month-to-month basis at the rate of P12.00 a
month.  On September 28, 1961, plaintiff
sent to defendant a letter advising the latter of the termination of the lease
effective October 31, 1961, and demanding payment of the rental covering the
month of September as well as that corresponding to the month of October and
the vacation of the premises not later than October 31, 1961.^[1]

Defendant having failed to vacate the premises, plain­tiff filed
a complaint for ejectment in the city court of Manila
on February 3, 1962.  On May 17, 1962, the city court rendered a
decision ordering the defendant to vacate the lot in question, and to pay
plaintiff the sum of P60.00 representing rents in arrears as of January 1962,
plus the sum of P12.00 a month beginning February, 1962 for the use and
occupation of the premises until she had complete­ly vacated and surrendered
the possession thereof to plain­tiff, to pay P30.00 as and for attorney’s fees
and the costs.

The defendant appealed the decision of the city court to the
Court of First Instance of Manila.  On June 24, 1963, the Court of First
Instance of Manila rendered a decision, the pertinent portions of which read as
follows:

“Plaintiff of course is within its rights in terminating the
contract of lease.  It is to be noted, however,
that this action for ejectment is premised not upon
the failure of the defendant to pay the rent, but upon notice of the termina­tion
or the lease given by the plaintiff to the defendant on Sept. 28, 1961. 
But defendant has been occupying this premises
for over 50 years.  In
accordance with Art. 1687 of the New Civil Code, defendant is entitled
to an extension of the lease.  This
period of extension should be commensurate with the period during which the
defendant had been occupying the premises as
lessee.  As defendant had been occupying
the premises for over 50 years, the Court believes that three years would be a
rea­sonable extension of the period of the lease.

“WHEREFORE, defendant is hereby granted a period of THREE (3)
years, counted from the date of this decision within which she may occupy the
premises.  Without
pronounce­ment as to costs.”

The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing
decision, but said motion was denied by the lower court on July 16, 1963. 
Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration on August 7, 1963, and on August 10, 1963, the lower court
amended the dis­positive portion of the decision to
read as follows:

“WHEREFORE, defendant is hereby granted a period of THREE (3)
years, counted from the date of this amenda­tory decision within which she may
occupy the premises at the same rental of P12.00 a month.  Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
plaintiff and against the defendant for the payment of back rentals from September,
1961 to January, 1962 at the same rate of P12.00 monthly rental.”^[2]

Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration dated August 17, 1963 was denied on August 26, 1963.

On September 2, 1963,
plaintiff filed its notice of appeal from: 
(a) the decision dated June 24,
1963 as modified on August
10, 1963; (b) the order dated July 16, 1963 denying the first motion for
reconsideration, and (c) the order dated August 26, 1963 denying the third motion for
reconsideration.  The appeal was duly
perfected.

Plaintiff-appellant assigns in its brief only one error allegedly
committed by the court, as follows:

“The lower court erred in extending the lease for a period of
three (3) years from the date of the amendatory decision.”

The main point stressed by plaintiff-appellant in its appeal is
that the trial court had incorrectly applied the provision of Article 1687 of
the Civil Code in granting the defendant-appellee an
extension of the lease for three years.

It appearing, however, that the amended decision was dated August 10, 1963, and according to the
decision the lease in question was extended for three years from that date, it
results that the period of the lease in question has by now expired.  The question raised in the present appeal
has, therefore, become academic, and this case has become moot.

WHEREFORE, the appeal of plaintiff-appellant is dis­missed,
and the decision appealed from is considered final and immediately executory.

No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., on official leave.

Villamor, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Record on Appeal, p. 5.

^[2]
Record on Appeal, pp. 40-41.